The math.random() function in action script produces the same seed pattern so there is a seed pattern.
Still there is a seed bias one way or the other, confirmed by adobe.
Where was this confirmed?
In addition, if Zanz did not build the function correctly, he can build a strong bias in effect doubling the odds for one particular result, just like the old nymph bug.
An incorrectly built function can affect odds even without a biased RNG (e.g. nymph bug).
Adobe has replaced the function starting with Flash version 11 see:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/beta/reference/actionscript/3/flash/crypto/package.html
Math.random() is still listed in the "related functions" from your link, and neither this page or the one for Math.random() indicate anything about it being replaced. generateRandomBytes() returns a ByteArray and uses "cryptographically strong functions provided by the operating system", while Math.random() returns a Number and "is calculated in an undisclosed manner".
So what does this mean?
It means, random is far from random in this game, not even close to a decent pseudo random. It means one person might have great 'luck' with a deck while another person does not. It also means, you can force a deck to play better over short bursts than long bursts. In other-words, a person playing 10 games a day might continuously win with a deck, while a person playing 100 games, might win the first 10, but not the next 20 or 30 because the more you play the more likely you will have bad draws, if you have a deck that continuously draws well the first 5 or 10 games you play it.
It means, that certain cards are more or less effective any given game, and depending on how zanz built this, the results are completely predictable.
This doesn't sound like what an improperly seeded pRNG would result in, but I can't really tell until I know what the nature of the seed bias being claimed is.
