You aren't using those words, but you certainly are implying it. At least, you are implying that your predictions somehow have a better chance of winning than randomly drawn numbers.
Tell me, what is the source of your mystical prediction powers? Do you REALLY think that super-ultra positive over optimisic thinking of your prediction abilities allows you to lower your odds to a quantifiable 1in 575757, or whatever you reduce the field to?
When you say "You can hide behind the "big picture" all you want Boney, it doesn't change the fact that in the big $588 million game I was playing with 10 times BETTER ODDS than you were.........." do you honestly think your odds are 10 times better than mine? The only way that you could have better odds is if your choices somehow affected the probability of beating a random event. So I'm sorry if I pis-represented what you are implying, but you must have one of the following points...
Either you are implying that you are...
1) affecting the random event
2) affecting the probability of beating a completely random game
3) detecting the random events' bias
4) taking advantage of mystical prediction powers.
Or is it something else entirely? You can talk all you want about having better odds because you say so, but you have no reasoning to explain how your odds are reduced at all, you only vaguely refer to prediction power and compare it to human ingenuity. You don't have proof of a winning methodology, you have a recorded run of good luck.
#3 is probably the only valid way to beat any physically drawn otherwise random game. Pretty much impossible with the lottery, though some players in the past have taken advantage of bias roulette wheels. Casino tech. has pretty much grown to the point where it's next to impossible to find an exploitable biased wheel in action nowadays, though.