There seem to be 2 schools of thought here on the predictability of Lotto games. Since Double-DUH, er, Delta Draw didn't specify whether he was confused by my questions, thinks they were totally irrelevant or naive, or otherwise not worth commenting on, I'm not sure which school he fits into.
The first school consists of those who are firmly entrenched in their belief in the Gambler's Fallacy. (See my other posts or check it out at Wikipedia.) If the selection of winners in a given Lotto game is totally and reliably random, then, probability theory, computer simulations, statistical analysis of historical data, and just plain common sense completely debunk these beliefs.
Which leaves the 2nd school. These people apparently understand the false hope provided by the Gambler's Fallacy, but suspect there are real mechanical or human intrusions in the selection process, thus causing the results NOT to be truly random. Consequently, they invest considerable amounts of time analyzing past results in an effort to uncover, not the source of these intrusions, but anomalies, or patterns in the winning selections. They then use [what they perceive to be] anomalies in an attempt to choose numbers they expect to be more likely in the future. Unfortunately, attempts to uncover fraud or mechanical problems in this way are, from a statistical point of view, next to useless. Why? First of all, completely random processes routinely exhibit "runs" or repeats. So, UNLESS a ping pong ball is clearly observed in slow motion video to be either hovering above the others, or lying on the bottom, it will be next to impossible to determine whether observed "runs" are the result of random variation or some other effect. Another aspect of this is that EVEN IF humans are tinkering with the balls in an effort to increase the likelihood of certain results, they would have learned over 3 decades ago to be subtle and remove the tainted balls or undo machine contrivances for the next draw. If they didn't do this, lottery watching statisticians would detect the anomaly in short order and they would be found out. If the conspirators are smart, the "patterns" everyone here are searching for are at the end of their tails! If the conspirators are NOT too smart, as happened on April 24, 1980 in Pittsburgh, the ruse will likely be exposed in short order, sooner than any discernable "patterns" could be identified. See "1980 Pennsylvania Lottery Scandal" at Wikipedia for the details of the conspiracy.
So, what school do you attend DD?
P.S. Games whose results are selected by computer are a whole new ball game. My comments above are not directed at these games. I do not play them.