Now I may be completely off here, but I believe 20 years ago that is how the random function in C++ worked, I seem to remember I looked into it then and always thought it quite a neat idea, which is why I always think of this calculations as computer "random". I have no clue how it works nowadays, but I would assume something like that, a rather simple calculation that spits out "random" numbers.But that's not what some people seem to be thinking is happening, and wasn't really what I was asking. Some people seem to be arguing not just that there is a not-really-random randomizer, but a randomizer that actually favors and unfavors individual players. On operational scales of not just days or weeks, but long haul over multiple events.
Personally, I don't see why INNO would bother doing anything other than using a built-in RAND() function.
People will never accept random for random and instead find patterns, most of them will find patterns where they come out as losers. It has nothing to do with the "random" not being random, but with psychology. People believing in such patterns don´t make them actually exist.
The nature of random will of course create those negative outliers that are unlucky 117 times in a row, but it will not create significantly more of those than of people lucky 117 times in a row. and it will create far fewer of either of them than people with a more "random" luck Anyway probably 50% of people will believe they are the one unlucky 117 times, 25% think they are lucky 117 times and 25% think they have average luck, while in reality 1% is unlucky, 1% is lucky and 98% are neither of the 2.
But since nobody will believe this we constantly get people with the most complicated theories as to why it isn´t actually random