| |
BGonline.org Forums
random vs. non-random rolls (long)
Posted By: Daniel Murphy In Response To: random vs. non-random rolls (long) (Chuck Bower)
Date: Saturday, 16 March 2013, at 5:21 p.m.
Perhaps Stein would clarify what he meant, but I understood him to mean that
If the dice are "poorly shaken" or "poorly thrown" , and "the thrower has no way of knowing or controlling which numbers ends up being the more probable" "it ... does not matter" that the throws yield "unequal probabilities for the 6 outcomes" as long as those "unequal probabilities" are "close enough to truly random for all practical purposes."
That last seems, to me, to be an important qualification. I don't think Stein meant that any results are acceptable. The farther from random that the rolls resulting from poor shakes, poor throws or biased dice get, the more it surely does matter. You might imagine for example that the throws resulted in no 5's ever being rolled; who would say that was fine as long as the thrower was not predicting or controlling the outcomes?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.