I'd like to redirect everyone. I have read the replies and there are good points in either pro or con. However, the original heading of the topic is 'How do I prove my state lottery's CGN is fix?' As of now, there is some indication that something is going a skew, but not the real 'gotcha betch!' moment; that's yet to come.
This was broken up into three different experiments, labeled Experiment 0, Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. Each follows on the other; Experiment 0 is the control setup for Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 is a play on the deficiencies created in Experiment 1. Experiment 0 and 1 had their numbers derived from previous draws, but Experiment 2's numbers a relatively fixed to previous draws. Experiment 2's numbers being posted in the Lottery Post's Perditions Board are wheeled from a fixed set of numbers {10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22} and they are centered on the deficiencies from Experiment 1; based on the bulk set of numbers established in the wheel number analysis. These are the numbers {13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19}. These numbers have shown to be deficient in the lottery's random number selection at the same numeric position where the greatest frequency of wheel numbers that were being posted for Experiment 1.
Experiment 2 has nearly nothing to do with trying to predict what numbers will occur based of previous draws. They are fixed, so there is really no feedback coming from the lottery. It's a sit and wait procedure; see what numbers are being selected and then analyze the numbers as they are coming out from the lottery. The next step is to see if there is some kind of correlation between what being posted and what's being selected. Ideally for truly random events, there shouldn't be any correlation because the two events are not directly related. In other words, if we were to not post the wheeled numbers there should be the same result; very little to low correlation. Even by happenstance, there shouldn't be a significant relationship between the two.
Now, I know some might say, well this could be an unusual instance and it doesn't mean any thing. But that's the way of the 'Naping Nay Sayer', always the exception never the rule. Well, when it comes to random selection and reasonable expectation, the exception is just that, an exception. What your going to find is that exceptions are actually harder to come by that one might think. It's like trying to win the lottery on the very first try; for the majority of people it ain't gonna happen on a regular basis. Pointing out the event that it has happened is meaningless because it's the ol' making a mountain out a mole hill approach. Look see... see look... it's happened! Yah, nice, now let's see that happen again and again and again every day, then I'll consider it a possibility worth analyzing.
For now, the posting and analyzing continues...
