The multimillionEuro conman who made up the pseudoscientific number game Global Scaling, Hartmut Müller, who fled before his conviction this spring, was now arrested in Brazil where he apperently lived since January 2012 in a penthouse while trying to continue his fraud – and calling himself a victim. Yeah, sure…
News reports:
Learn everything about yourself with numerology !!!
Simply with your name !!!!!
More than you ever imagined possible !!!!1
More than you ever wanted to know !!!oneeleven
Enter your name to have it kabbalisticnumerolie^H^H
ogically analyzed with the infallible knowledge of the preancient geniuses, combined with superultramodern computer technology – but you can also leave the input field empty, then stateoftheart newscientific mathematicianmuddrag methods of space energy research will be used to determine your meaningfull number fully automatically! You just have to sit still and concentrate!
Name (optional):
“The over 300 participants positively felt the crackling excitement when they witnessed the experiment. On a big screen, everybody could see that in Berlin and Nicosia the same security code was generated.”
I, personally, think that you can project a lot onto a screen… As long as it hasn’t been reliably verified and approved by independent scientists that indeed this technology created these codes as has been claimed, I got my doubts. And I think folks who offer a lotto prognosis deserve no trust in advance whatsoever, anyway.
Other than that, Google finds with GSPIN Berlin and GSDI Cyprus Berlin – thanks to the company’s location and aforementioned partcipation in Northern Cyprus – only several Turkish reports, e.g. Kibris Gazetesı, Mercek TV, TurkEkip, who look as like as two peas in a pod, which leads to the suspicion that they are just press releases from the GSDI company (from 1 Dec) which, of course, praise their own technology to the skies. (Another, not identical article: BRT.)
Since neither Google nor Altavista can translate Türkisch, and the attempt to translate word by word with online dictionaries is both cumbersome and errorprone as well as seems to confirm the praise to the skies, I’m asking, as the title shows, if you know Turkish and can have a look at the links above and tell me (in the comments here) what exactly they say – if it’s more than the typical press release blahblah… (you don’t need to make a full translation, of course ).
And does anyone maybe know actual eyewitness reports, preferrably critical ones?
Update 3.2.2010: » Ermittlungen gegen zyprische GlobalScalingVermarkter
]]>This article only deals with one specific method of pretended lotto prognoses. » Click here for all my articles about lotto
As an update to my long article “Predicting Lotto Numbers??”, in which I have analyzed the pretended lotto prognosis from Globalscaling.de, reaching the conclusion that they, in short, are no good – they effectively only tell you: “don’t play the same tip row twice” – here now the hit trend with the 15 drawings that were performed in the mean time:
Only the darkest graph – the exact hits – would really be relevant to single lotto players, and the next curve (with the maximum differences of ±1 that they like to stress so windowdressingly) to large tip communities who play over 50,000 lotto tips per drawing – if only the “prognosis” were a real prognosis and superior to a simple random function that cares about the distances, which it is not, as we know.
And I like to repeat: The lotto balls have no memory, the chances for 6 correct numbers are the same for each drawing, 1 : 13,983,816 per tip (and for the main prize, the “super number”, the last number of the playing form, must match, too). Beyond statistics, a specific lotto number prognosis is impossible according to all respectable, accepted and verified mathematical knowledge, anyway.
If someone says I have no clue of playing lotto again, please be more detailed and give reasons…
By the way, the complete archive of German lotto drawings can be downloaded e.g. from Lotto Bayern (next to the numbers: “mehr” – link at bottom of the page).
Furthermore, does anyone attend the “Global Scaling Event of the year: December 1st Kosmos Berlin”, as globalscaling.de headlines, with the “presentation of the GS PIN technology of Global Scaling Data Security in online banking”, for which, as I wrote a month ago, hazard investors are wanted as before for a “GCom technology” which had made the FINANZtest magazine (1/2004) issue a warning (German)?
Personally, I’d be surprised if you’d see – for the steep entrance fee of 69 € which certainly doesn’t include 7course 5star catering – some scientifically verifiably real and working technology there…
Update: Please also note the (German) links in “kritikus”' comment…
Update 13 Dec: That oh so great “event of the year” mentioned above can’t have been that great if you can’t find anything about it, not even on the Global Scaling homepage (or does anyone know more?), can it? At least that’s how it seems to me…
Update 18 Dec: » Continued here with info or rather the question about more about this GSPIN event from 1 Dec 07.
]]>The original version of this article was from October 11, but since a lot has changed, I also updated the date. I had written:
Y’know, it’s kinda funny, on Monday I publish an extensive article about the pretended lotto prognosis from globalscaling.de = raumenergieforschung.de, and sometime in the last few days they didn’t just make their start page a little prettier (less cramped) – the lotto prognosis has disappeared from the start page and the title navigation bar!
Well, got my hopes up too soon. In the mean time, two red “News” bars were added to the homepage, one of which links to the “new” lotto prognosis homepage (which is only the already known customer area) – maybe their customers complained they didn’t find that stuff anymore…
So this no longer applies either:
Maybe they wanted to give their branch of science(?) a more respectable paintwork by painting over what must be appearing as quite dubious a stain even to relative laymen…
Update 20 Nov 07: Updated prognosis analysis.
I’ve also been informed about something else (thanks again!): A company called “GSDI Cyprus Ltd.”, apparently with the participation of or at least referrence to “Global Scaling” founder Dr. Hartmut Müller, was searching investors a few years ago for a new kind of data transmission, tempting them with high “patent yields”, what also made FINANZtest (1/2004) publish a warning (see e.g. Anlageschutzarchiv (German)).
As it seems, nothing has come of it – except for a new “technology” for data encryption for online banking called “GSPIN”, still with participation of “GSDI Cyprus Ltd.” and the “Yesilada Bank” (both in North Cyprus), though now mainly on www.morint.com instead of www.gsdicyprus.com, and they’d like investors now, too, of course.
You may make your own thoughts about the trustworthiness of that whole “Global Scaling” construct…
]]>Via Bloggerei.de and (update:) what was, at that time, on Ramschmarkt.de, I came across something called “Global Scaling”, a, let’s call it view of the world where everything is said to be connected by a standing wave and that apparently claims that all things big and small can somehow be described with logarithmic scales – or something like that, maybe I didn’t interpret all those pieces of information floating around on the web correctly. The main homepage seems to be globalscaling.de (also abbreviated as GS in the following text), the “Institute for Space Energy Research”.
Yes, I’ve contemplated whether I should spend much attention to such a dubious “system”, but…
(I apologize for this being quite lengthy, but a certain detailedness is necessary. So maybe get yourself a cup of coffee – or go directly to the conclusion…))
Quote from globalscaling.de, my translation:
“How exact is the Lotto prognosis?
The lottery is about the selection of a random sequence of natural (whole) numbers. Because of that, under best preconditions, a lotto prognosis can never be more accurate than ±1.”
This combination of these two sentences, I think, will make the hair of anyone who has ever seen a formula from probability calculus from nearby stand on end. Only with a little heaps of good will – and without knowing the formulae of “Global Scaling” – one could assume that this sentence’s wording is just accidentally a little off, or shortened, simplified too much…
The sentence (in my translation)
“We point out that we give no guarantee for the precision of our lotto prognosis.”
is necessary, of course – if the prognoses were perfect, they already were multiple lotto millionaires and had no need to make the effort to sell their “lotto prognosis”. Anyway, following on that page are a bunch of big numbers, which, the way I read it, boil down to the fact that the more tips you play that do not repeat, the higher your chances to win. Preferably (for GS) with numbers bought from GS, of course…
For this purpose, they publish (accessible in the customer area without login) a list of 145 prognoses (consisting of 7 numbers each) and the drawn numbers from German Lotto (“6/49” plus “bonus number”) from 29/4/2006 to 26/9/2007 (when I started writing this article; they skipped 3 and have 1 twice, accidentally), plus as analysis how many drawn numbers differed by 1 or less and by 2 or less from the nearest predicted number. I analyzed that with a little more detail and calculated the mean values of the 145 prognoses (the bold numbers are equivalent to those they mention themselves):
exact hits:  0.924 ■ (of 7) 
difference ±1 / sum:  1.986 ■ / 2.910 
difference ±2 / sum:  1.752 ■ / 4.662 
difference ±3 or more:  2.338 ■ 
Well… By the way, can anyone tell me the practical use of differences of ±1 or more – other than maybe trying to show how great the prognosis seemingly works? Because:
Would anyone really play 54,264 tips (all possible combinations of 6 out of the 21 numbers that you get when you take the prognosed 7 and each number before and after these)? If you had, you had actually scored “6 correct numbers” once, winning 571,084.50 €, on 14/7/2007 (or with a chance of 1:10 for the correct “super number” the half of 4,283,134.40 €), and four more times “5 + bonus”. Nice? Well, each tip costs 0.75 €, that’s 40,698 € plus handling fees per drawing, or 5,901,210 € + fees for 145 drawings… Investing 347,130 € (average for tips per month, without fees) every month for 17 months at 3% interest p.a., you’d have about 6,034,000 € now.
Had you played 7 tips each (all combinations of 6 numbers out of the prognosed 7) with these 145 prognoses, it had cost you 7 x 0.75 € x 145 = 761.25 € plus fees (72.50 € in Bavaria) – plus 468 € for GS’s numbers. Total: 1301.75 €. You had scored only “3 + bonus” on two (12/7/2006, 25/10/2006) and “3” on three more drawings, which adds up to 6x “3+bonus” + 14x “3” thanks to the “6 out of 7” system, giving you prizes of a meager 295.10 €.
(Without guarantee.)
For the fun of it, I compared each of these 145 prognoses to each of the 145 drawings, a total of 21,025 comparisons, as well as to all 713 drawings since 2/12/2000 (can be downloaded e.g. from Lotto Bayern, by the way), that’s 103,530 comparisons:
each prognosis compared to:  145 drawings  713 drawings 

exact hits:  0.973 ■ (of 7)  0.994 ■ (of 7) 
difference ±1 / sum:  1.984 ■ / 2.957  1.991 ■ / 2.985 
difference ±2 / sum:  1.732 ■ / 4.688  1.720 ■ / 4.705 
difference ±3 or more:  2.301 ■  2.295 ■ 
Whoops! That’s even a little better! globalscaling.de seemed to have had a little bad luck…
By the way, there is apparently no trend that the prognoses were getting better over time (even worse within difference ±2):
Update until 17 Nov 07 see here.
But how good are the numbers really? How do they compare to “bilnd”, i.e. purely random tips “7 out of 49”? Since the 1 and the 49 do not appear in the 145 published prognoses (the goal being best precision within ±1, mind you), the highest first number is 11 (all tip rows mentioned here are looked at in ascending order, by the way) and the lowest last 38 (which is often far more extreme for purely random choices), we will regard that too:
random 1 to 49  random 2 to 48, borders ≤11, ≥38 


exact hits:  1.002 ■ (of 7)  0.963 ■ (of 7) 
difference ±1 / sum:  1.638 ■ / 2.640  1.609 ■ / 2.572 
difference ±2 / sum:  1.239 ■ / 3.879  1.271 ■ / 3.843 
difference ±3 or more:  3.121 ■  3.157 ■ 
I conducted 1,480,000 “prognosis comparisons” each (fluctuations are still possible, of course – and they are computergenerated pseudo random numbers, after all). (It’s of course excpected to see an average exact hit of 1 of 7 when drawing 7 of 49 numbers.)
We see: The GS numbers are, in average, actually closer to the drawn numbers than pure random numbers – whatever that may be useful for. That’s not really surprising when considering that pure random numbers have often quite large gaps in which many drawn numbers can “get lost”.
One might suspect that it’s important that the numbers differ by 3 or more, becuase with numbers following each other directly or with a single number gap, you would give away potential for being as good as possible with differences of max. ±1. So let’s analyze the frequency of distances between the numbers, calculating with difference from 1 for the first number for practical reasons (difference ±1). (Green line: GS numbers; orange/redbrown: random)
Aha! It is concentrated on distances between 3 and 10, with the distance of 1 (i.e. one number directly succeeding the other) appearing only once in all 145 prognoses, just like the highest of 20. With the random numbers (149), the highest distance was 42, the highest first number 41, the lowest last 9!
I have used this array of numbers, out of which the distance for the next number in a tip row is chosen randomly (and tip rows whose highest number was below 38 were discarded):
(3,3,3,3,3,3,
4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,
5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,
6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,
7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,
8,8,8,8,8,8,
9,9,9,9,9,
10,10,10,
11)
The frequency after 1,480,000 experiments looks as follows (red line; green line the GS numbers repeated from above) – somewhat similar (close enough, since I don’t intend to completely imitate GS anyway):
Nota bene: I do not claim that globalscaling.de uses a simple function like this! I don’t know the algorithm GS uses. I can only say that the result of this little function of mine is at least as “good” (according to the criteria mentioned or implied by GS) – in my experiments even better:
GS numbers (from above)  my little function  

exact hits:  0.924 ■ (of 7)  1.148 ■ (of 7) 
difference ±1 / sum:  1.986 ■ / 2.910  2.264 ■ / 3.411 
difference ±2 / sum:  1.752 ■ / 4.662  1.866 ■ / 5.277 
difference ±3 or more:  2.338 ■  1.723 ■ 
If you want, you may use these generated numbers – free of charge – as basis for your lotto tip. Of course I cannot guarantee that you win, just as, for instance, (unmanipulated) dice can’t. Should you actually win something, it would be nice if you donate half of it to me (but that’s no obligation, it’s all up to you). For one or a few tips, these numbers are neither better nor worse than any other numbers.
These numbers and the underlying program code may not be used commercially, i.e. especially selling is forbidden!
If you want to look at the code: cleverrandom.js (right click, “Save target as…” or similar)
So we see: Rows of numbers that meet the conditions of “prognoses with small differences” (as they are also deducible from the prognoses published by GS) can also be created with little effort.
We might have just used 7 fixed numbers with the same distances, but with only 145 or 713 experiments (drawings), that would have been anything but representative.
Well, if you really want to play 54,264 tips (“6 out of 21”, see above, you may now have come to realize on a slightly intricate way that you should make sure that you don’t play the same tip row twice, since double tip rows would not improve your chances of winning anything at all.
Whether you spend extra money on that or just take any numbers that differ by at least 3, is up to you – your chances of winning are effectively the same, as can be seen from above analysis as wel as all accepted, verified mathematical methods…
That also applies when playing in a “sensible” manner – a few tips per drawing. You do not need to buy numbers or use a number generation function like mine above.
We had already found that the prizes won had been less than the costs when playing according to the published GS numbers in section 3 above.
Update 19 Oct.: The lotto prognosis was only temporarily not linked to on their start page, and there’s new info on the trustworthiness of the whole “Global Scaling” construct: more….
]]>