That's because there are more numbers that are not consecutive than numbers that are consecutive.
So any specific combo is not affected by your statistic. It it irrelevent, if your goal is to win prizes more often. Seems like a silly goal to me, though, because spending lots of money to win small prizes doesn't seem like something productive.
And consecutive numbers can be randomly drawn, and are drawn, very close to how often probability dictates they should.
Of course it's more likely to have some high and some low, but that's because more combinations exist that are both than just one. For example, in the Pick 3, there are 125 all high, 125 all low, 750 that have both. You'r logic would dictate that it's better to pick from the group that has both, but the reason this logic is flawed is because even though you're "group" will come out 75% of the time, and those times you have a "1 in 750" shot of winning, 25% of the time you have no chance of winning, and this works out so that no matter what number you pick, all high, all low, some of each, your odds of winning are exactly 1 in 1000.
This same math can be applied to the big jackpot games, to show that every single combination is just as likely as any other, but it is much more complex, so I don't want to work it out, especially something that any mathmetician or even average person, can tell you. A random event has no regard for whether it picks numbers consecutively. It just picks.... randomly. The sums, the high/low, the spread, all of this information is irrelevent. (Well, you could increase expected value by picking numbers that you don't think other people would, to decrease your probability of sharing the jackpot, if you win)