<i>My assumption was that each number should have an equal distribution over time, so anything that did not had a higher likely hood of being chosen.</i><p>I feel like saying Gambler&#x27;s Fallacy to someone who knows what R is is borderline aggressive but, out of a maximum of good intentions, the thing you&#x27;ve labeled as an assumption is called the Gambler&#x27;s Fallacy and it is so named because statistics does not work that way.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gambler%27s_fallacy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gambler%27s_fallacy</a><p>Consider the case of a fair coin.  We agree that, if one flips a sufficient number of coins 100 times, eventually one of them will come up with 100 heads, right?  Pretend you&#x27;ve got a factory in China filled with people flipping fair coins until one station shouts out &quot;GOT IT!&quot;<p>Do you think that there&#x27;s some property that the universe attaches to that coin which makes it more likely to be heads, or more likely to be tails, simply because it &quot;feels&quot; anomalous if one happened to be flipping only that coin and not one of the thousands being flipped simultaneously in the factory?<p>No, that&#x27;s preposterous.  The universe doesn&#x27;t care what feels anomalous to us.  It&#x27;s a fair coin.  The next shot is like every other shot: 50&#x2F;50.