Oh I missed that.
Keep in mind it's been a while since I've had to use this formula so I may be missing a step... I doubt it though. (Most of the work has already been done by others in my gambling so I have little need of a formula to find STD DEV for something like the average Lottery numbers, I basically use the kelly criterion, if anyone was interested)
I also don't remember the actual proper test for this.... it's more complicated than the one you use if negatives are possible. I don't really want to go through and do a lot of work for this, so I'm going to use very rough estimates rather than take a couple hours to go through the formulas relevant to this type of test....
Well the mean is 700/(1/(5/56)), which simplifies to 62.5. The variance is approximately 1/(5/56) or 11.2. (I use an approximate b/c doing the math with every possible outcome is tedious) The square root of that is STD DEV, so the STD DEV for one trial is around 3.34. The STD DEV for multiple trials is the square root of the number of trials times STD DEV for one trial. So Squareroot of 700 times 3.34 = about 88.3. Since negative values are meaningless (none can be less than 0) the expectation for any idividual number is to come up between 18.35-106.65 - 68.2% of the time.
Looking back at my work I know I made an error, most likely because I think I was supposed use the Chi squared test, which honestly, I completely forgot how to do. I realize you're going to ridicule me for that, but I don't really care b/c I know it's out there and if you wanted to get an accurate answer, someobody could dig it up. Basically the reason for this is that a number can't come up less than 0 times, so the whole test should really be Right Skewed (if you looked at the results on a curve) creating a situation where the STD DEV measurement has a different definition than with a curve that isn't skewed.
So it's probably more accurate to say that there would likely be more STD DEV would be smaller if I performed the proper test. Anyway, that's my long, and partly innacurate answer. Although it's safe to say that not abornmal for numbers to be pretty far off of there expected average until there have been many draws. Say what you will about the differences in numbers' frequencies from their expected average, I say it's completely explainable through the proper statistics. Unless it was consistently way off the average, I wouldn't be concerned.