A wider field contains more of the winning set by arithmetic alone, so comparing fields of different
widths to each other proves nothing. Each one here is measured against the hypergeometric
baseline — what a randomly chosen field of exactly that width would have contained across
the same draws.
Containment against chance
Each point is one published field: its width across the bottom, and how often it held all six winning
numbers up the side. The dashed line is what chance alone delivers at each width. The vertical gap
between a point and that line is the entire claim.
HALLEY field CONSENSUS rung Random field of the same width
Field by field
Counts are draws, not tickets. “All six” means the whole winning set fell inside that field.
Field
Width
Avg held
All six
5 or better
4 or better
All six rate
vs random
Where the draws land
How often each field held 0 through 6 of the winning numbers, with the chance distribution for that
width beneath it. A field that works pushes the whole shape rightward, not just the top end.
Observed Chance, same width
Where the signal actually sits
Consensus 29
A Consensus field has two parts. The core is where two independent selections agreed.
The fill is coverage added afterwards to reach a fixed width. Measured per number-slot,
they behave nothing alike — and the fill is the honest half of that story.
Value spanned
All history
Prize value of the draws each field contained at 4 or better. This is the value the field spanned
— not an amount won, and not an amount any subscriber received.
Scoring the recordMeasuring nine fields against chance…