Method Comparison

In short: this section places Verdario's independent approaches — the Pool, Scenarios, Recommendations (Numbers), and (at Explorer tier) scenario intersections — side by side and helps you assemble a consensus set. It does not change the ticket's odds and does not predict tomorrow's draw.

1. A common denominator for comparison

Raw hits (how many times a set matched all 6) cannot be compared directly between methods with different set sizes and different logic.

That's why the interface reduces the criteria to one denominator:

This way you compare quality relative to randomness and depth, not "who scored more 6-matches just because the set is bigger."

2. What's compared

1. Pool — a curated set from the frequency model (size 18–48).
2. Scenarios — a set from the Stable/Chaos phase model.
3. Recommendations (Numbers) — a set from the numbers board (Standard / Advanced).
4. Scenario intersections — agreement among the Short ∩ Med ∩ STAB families (Explorer tier).

Each method builds its own set independently. Agreement between several methods is stronger than a single vote.

3. Number consensus

Consensus — numbers that landed in two or more of the selected methods at once.

The block shows how many numbers are "supported" by at least two independent loops. Next, you choose a combination of methods (e.g. 1–2, 1–3, 2–3, 1–2–3; on Study also with intersections) and a set-assembly mode:

Intersection (AND)

The set includes only numbers that appear in all of the selected methods.

The set is smaller and stricter.

When it's appropriate: the methods correlate weakly / are independent by nature — then agreement is informative: consensus is not "cheap", and the AND core is stronger as a quality filter. Also useful when you want a narrower set for a ticket or for a further intersection in the basket.

Union (OR)

The set includes numbers that appear in at least one of the selected methods.

The set is wider.

When it's appropriate: you need broader coverage and complementary signals (different viewpoints) — OR gathers numbers that a strict AND would otherwise cut out. Also useful when you deliberately want to widen the pool before a purchase strategy.

Practical rule of thumb:

• weak correlation / independent methods → intersection is especially meaningful (agreement actually means something);
• need wider coverage → union;
• strong correlation → AND and OR add little over a single method (the sets already largely overlap);
• in any case, always check the set with a backtest (see below).

4. All section features (by access level)

A. Comparison size (size strip)

• Guest: 48, 47, 18
• All sizes — from tier 1

B. "Pool" card

Rating / efficiency / 6-match / to basket.

(metrics from tier 1; often blurred for guests)

C. "Scenarios" card

Rating, prediction efficiency, hits — available to guests within the open scenario loop.

D. "Recommendations (Numbers)" card

Standard for everyone; the best Advanced parameters — from tier 1.

E. "Scenario intersections" card

The fourth comparison column.

(Explorer tier)

F. Backtest chart (method comparison)

Cumulative rating / hits over recent draws.

(tier 1)

G. Number consensus + method selector + AND/OR

(guest+; extended combinations with intersections — Explorer tier)

H. Consensus balls → "To basket"

• Guest: limit of 1 set
• tier 1+: several sets

I. Consensus backtest (table)

(tier 1)

5. Backtesting the resulting set — mandatory

Consensus and AND/OR are assembly, not a guarantee. The resulting set needs to be put through a backtest.

Important: look at a depth of 20 draws or more.

• 10 — a surface-level estimate; the method's randomness is still noticeable.
• 20+ — shows more reliably whether the set holds up in quality relative to chance.
• 30 (Explorer tier in adjacent sections) — cuts out the random factor even more strictly.

On the Comparison screen itself, the table/chart is often computed on a fixed window (often the last 10) for a quick check. For a serious check, use the depth of 20/30 available to you in related sections (Scenarios / Pools / Numbers), and look at efficiency and rating, not just raw 6-matches.

6. Typical scenarios

Guest

1. Size 48 / 47 / 18.
2. A scenario card + consensus AND or OR.
3. A set to the basket (1 pc).
4. Pool/recommendation metrics and the chart — showcase (blur).

Tier 1

1. All sizes.
2. Three cards open + chart + consensus backtest.
3. Assemble the consensus → check it with a backtest (aim for a depth of ≥20 in the available tools).

Tier 2

Same, plus a deeper backtest in related sections (up to 20).

Explorer tier

Same, plus the 4th scenario-intersections card + extended consensus + depth up to 30.

Important to remember

• Comparison reduces methods to a common denominator (prediction efficiency / normalized rating).
• Consensus reinforces numbers where independent models agreed.
• Intersection — especially when methods correlate weakly / a strict agreement filter is needed.
• Union — when you need wider coverage from complementary methods.
• Check any assembled set with a backtest, preferably on ≥20 draws.
• No consensus makes a 6-number combination more likely.