Like you, I did as well as one might expect from a random distribution of numbers.
If I assembled a list of more than 170,000,000 numbers, I would expect there to be a 70% chance roughly of winning, if the numbers I picked were random. If I took 5 years picking numbers at a rate of one per second with the proviso that no set of numbers were repeated, my chances would be almost 100%, but of course it is impossible for anyone to actually do this.
It is also impossible to predict lottery numbers based on past performance. If one of your numbers came up, it would be for the same reason that the numbers that did come up came up, random chance. It is a law of science that the probability of an event is not effected by the previous event's outcome.
Every person who wins the lottery exceeds expectations, but any claim that they have done so using a system based on predictive analysis of chaotic events is mathematically and scientifically absurd. One can make general predictions based on statistical analysis of events. For instance in the science of statistical mechanics, scientists can make the general representation of air pressure based on temperature and volume based on a distribution of probabilities for the behavior of individual molecules. This however is very different from claiming to predict exactly what all the molecules will be doing at a specific time. In one case one is appealing to average behavior, in the other one is attempting to predict specific behavior.
The powerball lottery once had a little blurb on their website indicating that the number of winners that they have, in percentage terms, who win with quick picks is very close to the number of people who buy quick picks. Who'd have thunk it?
I'm quite sure that there is some fraction of lottery winners who claim to have won because of a system. I'm sure that the fraction of such winners is very closely matched by the fraction of players who, in fact, have a system. Of course, many people want to believe something quite different, which is their privilege, but such claims are essentially mystic and not scientific in any way. Surrounding nonscientific claims with obscure terminology that is neither irreproducible or predictive of events is often an element of pseudoscience, pseudoscience being an attempt to validate what are essentially mystic appeals by things that "sound" scientific.
That said, if one is buying more than one ticket, there are ways that they can reduce their odds by less than half. For instance, if one was to buy tickets that were all identical, one would not reduce one's odds at all.
Personally, I don't care what people do, but I hope that nobody spends money on lottery systems. You would increase your odds of winning by more by simply buying more tickets. If one plays a system for fun, that's fine, but no one should believe that if they buy a system, they will do better. They won't.