At times, Duck reminds me of a character from SNL, Wendy Whiner. Perhaps we should refer to Duck as Wendy from now on.

Don't let the ones with their tin foil hats screwed on too tight get under your skin. I appreciate your work and was surprised that the quantity of rolls 40 tosses or more without a seven was that high. I expected a lower number.

Or you could do your own f*cking work. However, being the nice person that I am, I'll offer the following resource: Random Number Generator -- Note the settings below for Parts 1-3. You will get 5,000 "rolls" because of the 10,000 random integers limitation. You get to choose the randomization in Part 4. Copy | Paste (as text) the output that is generated into the spreadsheet of your choice. I have found it is easier to scroll up (starting from the bottom) when copying large amounts of data in a table. https://www.random.org/integers/?mode=advanced I just ran 5,000 "rolls" from Random.org and input the data into Excel. After a few calculations & sorts, I searched for blocks of 40 or more consecutive non-7s. There were zero (0) such blocks in that data. You could opt to use the Dice Roller at Random.org, but it only generates a single roll at a time. https://www.random.org/dice/

All of these post are very funny and entertaining, but this thread is to address a math problem. It's not about, how nice a guy you are, or haw aptly you can come up with vocabulary and number theory shit, that has nothing to do with the problem. The easiest way to get to the correct answer, is to address post number 40 in this thread. Show me the math. Show me how I get the right answer for a run of 4, but continuing the process gives me an incorrect answer for a run of 40. At what point does the math go astray, RR? My, aren't you guy's up early this morning.

That is only partially true because the less often something occurs the larger the sample size has to be to be a valid sample. 60,000 throws is not a large enough sample for something that only happens once every 1500 throws. I would want a sample in the billions to consider it a valid sample in this example.

60,000 is ample to solve it mathematically, though it might not be enough for the math to bare itself out. This guy is saying the mathematical solution is wrong. It is not. Either he doesn't know, or, he is being intentionally misleading. This guy did not show up by accident, he was summoned, I'm not sure by whom. This line of questioning leads to a very interesting place, hang on for the ride. Good luck with living long enough, to get "BILLIONS" of throws.

You're correct. How often 40 or more rolls occurs without a seven has no value to the way I bet so I chased ma around the bed instead. All that concerns me is how often 2 paying box numbers occur after a point is established. Anything more is icing on the cake.

Agreed one would need a much, much larger sample size in order to obtain a more accurate result. Duck claimed the @8 or so blocks of 40 consecutive non-7 numbers (based upon 57,000+ rolls -- I don't have the exact figures from your post and am too lazy to look them up) was the result of some sort of "problem" with WinCraps. I was curious what Excel would come up with for such a limited sample size so I ran 60,000 "rolls" and got 5 blocks of 40 or more consecutive non-7 rolls. I don't have the time to run & analyze millions, let alone billions, of simulated rolls (or observe, record & analyze that many actual dice rolls).

It's not a math problem, it's a sample size & analysis problem. This isn't a 1 roll or 4 roll event for which sufficient data is readily available or very easily attainable. A sufficiently large sample size of valid rolls (billions is a good starting point) -- most likely simulated rolls, because it would take too long to record data from actual rolls (outside of perhaps a well-funded & staffed lab) -- would be needed to draw any reasonable conclusions about how frequently a 40 consecutive non-7 roll event occurs. The fact you had objections based upon results garnered from a miniscule 57K roll sample size might indicate you don't understand probabilities to the extent you think you do.

This is Barney, I started up LIDs supper computer and ran simulations of 1.5 billion ( which took about 4 minutes) and came up with exact numbers of time a random dices tosser would tosses 40 or mores dices without hitting a seven. The answer was 42. Thank you very much

Damn nice of you, Barney. My not-so-super computer is tied up running algorithms for volunteer computing and bloatware from various computer hardware & software vendors.

Now we know why he thinks bubble craps isn't a random game....apparently he doesn't know his ass from his elbow on probabilities. I was wondering why he was still only cashing out $13.21 vouchers....on a game he claims isn't close to being random. "No way"....was the term I remember seeing.

Nothing of the sort, lol. That would probably require someone with an engineering / computer science background -- you know, real talent. I took a few courses in college and read quite a few books. Early on, I had ambitions of writing a card game, in part because one doesn't have to be a talented graphics person -- which I'm not. Perhaps I'll give it another shot someday.

I love living in the country but one of the down falls. is my internet is dependent on how ambitious and well fed the gerbils in the satellite are. I try to save as much bandwidth as I can for work.