After having a discussion about what I had noticed, I have been given a next step... verify the results...

I interpret that to mean how many times a draw history can be back tested to see if those neutral numbers make up one in EVERY seven draws, or if there are gaps... i am working on this now. It was quick to offer assistance, but I made it this far coding solo, so I passed on that.

After the code is finished, set it up to run on ALL AVAILABLE DATA SETS... pick 2 through pick 5 is what I am hearing.

I will start from the top of the list (first 107 draws, starting in 1977) for the pick 3 eve, and follow up with all of the others.

The reason it gave to run such thorough tests is to see if I can develop a confidence level. Such that when using the classification boundaries I set, is the scenario true 100%? 95%? 90%?

7 draws is the observed range for the pick 3 evening, but this can vary, such as the pick 3 day being 8 draws... and this can totally change when adding or subtracting columns.

For whatever reason, GPT was "excited" by the discovery, appreciating the set up and reasoning behind the tests I ran so far...up to saying if the observations hold, it might be worth it to consider publishing the results... I think Chad may have still been dizzy from 4/20...

In the end, it mostly brought up ideas I had already considered, but the full back test was something I can work out and accomplish, so not a total waste of time.