Quote:
I have seen enough of the drawings to know that the amount of repeat drawings does not reflect actual randomness.
Ok, but what we are telling you is this. You gave us a number that showed that an event that seemed to happen a lot shouldn't happen as much as it seems. The first answer is that the event you described isn't as improbable as you said it was.
The second answer is that there is a selection bias in play. What looks as if it's abnormal tends to stick with people even though there's nothing necessarily out of the ordinary about it.
My third answer is this. When I have to choose between the possibility that a computer RNG is faulty or the possibility that a human has a faulty perception of randomness, my guess is that the second possibility is is infinitely far more likely, because the human brain isn't really equipped to deal/comprehend with randomness. After all, the human brain through evolution is designed to find patterns even when those patterns don't exist.
Having said that. Is there a possibility that the RNG is faulty? Maybe, could be. I am not qualified to answer. But it's far more likely that the people grumbling that the RNG isn't really random are probably at fault.
I suggest reading a book called the Drunkard's Walk or Taleb's Folled by Randomness. Both books deal with precisely those issues.