"What the comparison tells me is that the state of knowledge of math and the scientific method here at LP is dramatically deficient."
Whatever knowledge of math and scientific mythology you claim to have was useless in this discussion. But then again you never understood common sense in the past so I doubt you'll understand it now.
From the beginning we discussed the possibility of specific groups of 28 numbers having better chances of having a five number and specifically in the MM game. After about 3000 posts, you decided to "help lift the fog that seems to have settled on this thread" by running a Monte Carlo simulation on a pick-3 game. The results you showed proved what we assumed 3000 posts ago that some groups of numbers will be drawn more than others.
If there is a fog, it's about finding a scientific method that produces a group of 28 numbers that will have a five number match 5 times in the next 60 drawings. We're not even looking for one of the 19,000 groups, but just a method to find 28 numbers that will gets a 1:12 ratio of five number matches. If your vast knowledge of math and scientific approaches are that superior to ours, it should be simple for you.
It makes no sense to show the results of a Monte Carlo simulation that proves even some QPs numbers will have better odds over time if you're trying to prove all numbers had the same odds over the same time period. And it makes even less sense to show a pick-3 simulation when the discussion is about MM numbers.
"You might also check out the BASIC code I published of a roulette simulation."
That might be useful if the same codes were used to generate QPs by lottery terminals and the same code was used for the drawings, but it isn't. To you our approach might not be scientific, but it's based on the fact in every MM drawing 51 numbers won't be drawn and we're simply trying to eliminate using 28 of them. And we already knew it was possible a RNG group of 28 numbers could get the same results making your Monte Carlo simulation unnecessary.
"You'll have to refresh MY memory of the 50,000 "mythical" players you refer to."
https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/229947/8
"Of the 50,000 "People" who played for 13.7 years..."
As if 50,000 real players would play $1 QP in every drawing for the next 5000 drawings always betting $1 to win $500 regardless of how much they were ahead or hooked. The results showed how many players were out over $500 after 5000 drawings. I suppose to it make sense to you real players out $1000 or more after 4999 drawings would still make a $1 bet to win $500 on the last bet.
But since they are not real players, you can use whatever "scientific methods" you choose to you get your desired results.