Well conidering that Lotteries have been run for many decades, and considering that I don't believe that there are any biases, I haven't chosen to run any trial and error testing, which I feel would be a waste of time.
I've said this to other people before, and they always seem to get offended. But the burden of proof is on YOU GUYS, who think the lottery's odds are different than published. I simply used the logic, followed by math. Assuming that there are no biases, my math should be spot on.
If there are biases, then I could be wrong. But why should I waste my time creating a scientific test that I don't think would lead anywhere? Not to mention that there hasn't been, and I don't think there ever will be, enough draws to prove that there are biases in the way lottery balls are drawn, at least to a 95 or 99% confidence level.
And I'm also fairly confident that other people (the lottery commision, for instance) has done plenty of trial and error testing to verify a fair game. If they didn't, their auditors should have. If they didn't, then plenty of people trying to win probably would have.
I think my energy is better spent on games that actually have been proven to be beatable, like Poker and Blackjack.
Logic and math is the basis of pretty much all gambling. Of course logical errors can lead to flawed math, but I'm confident I didn't make any. (If the math was for a complex game, then I probably would, so I'd trust experts rather than myself.)
Of course, like I said, if there is bias in the way the drawings occur, then I'm wrong. I'm just confident that's not the case.