One thing I noticed is while watching the draws is that the machine doesn't vary its spin times at all, or it's picking up ball times, they are set at a fixed value, watch it and see for yourself, in these 2 videos for example, one, two. It is also most likely they put the balls in order and then the machine drops them into the ball machine pit. This is an assumption but I think it's valid as if you watch a few vids, the same spots are taken up in the ball handler indicating they always use the same positions and order would make it even easier for the 3rd party verifier and TV goer to see that all balls are accounted for. Not to mention conversely you could increase disorder if you randomize the balls in certain positions but there is always that 1 empty spot in both the red and white draws so they use the same positions draw to draw, odds are they don't randomize where the balls go either. If true, there is consequently less disorder, so more predictability. Put this all together and let's test it! Theoretically this should mean that the beginning drop down of the ball positions shouldn't vary much from draw to draw, only affected by where the spinner is when the ball handler door is let go, looking at how much protrusions said spinner has the beginning drop down positions shouldn't vary much at all. I couldn't verify this though, 360p is all they got on youtube, it's horrendous.

The only disorder in that system if the above assumption is correct then would be the balls hitting each other, the ball spinner, the ball picker or the walls of the ball machine. Essentially collisions, which somewhere in the world there is a physics grad student using a supercomputer modeling particle physics so if you know some information I'm certain you can increase your odds if you turn it into your own personal ball collision computer. That said you have to know LOTS of information which you likely aren't privy to. Not to mention could you really account for everything under the sun? Heck if a university paired up with powerball to use their machines to get all this information before hand and then live test their simulation before the lottery and win repeatedly, then you just modeled real life down to a T, and accounted for EVERYTHING there ever is in a most random setting. That would be amazing and ridiculously hard and I'd say they earned their win.

Now to more practical methods, but I do like just thinking about the what ifs. Well to increase your odds you can buy more tickets and/or play in a pool, the latter is more cost effective. You could also buy all the tickets if that's possible when the jackpot reaches a certain value but if you have the money for that then you definitely play the lottery for fun not money so you wouldn't be thrilled at this idea unless you found some sort of loophole taking an inherently -EV game and making it + . Some things you can do to better your odds are not pick stupid combinations or limit your set of numbers, make it as truly random as you can, odds are the draw winner isn't going to be ordered or be from 1-31 only. Truly though the lottery is like most people have said in the past, a poor mans tax, sure you have the chance to win but why not just put that $10/wk towards bonds and get a guaranteed return?