RS wrote:
and he (Bob) believes it's the machine's lifetime only that one can apply
the long-term rule to. <<
That's something that most players will never agree is correct, although it
is obvious to many that it is correct. The reason is that it's the machine
that deals the cards. The machine is proactive while the player is
reactive. To put it another way, as players, we are constantly playing
defense against the machine's offense, looking for weaknesses or
opportunities to take advantage of the machine's latest play.
The argument against the timeline being with the machine is that it would
supposedly imply that something is "due." That's not true, since most
sessions are "short term" where variance plays a huge role in outcome.
Those players who insist that they see a more or less expected distribution
after many short term sessions are probably seeing the results of variance
more than anything else, and there are likely more players who are not
seeing anything like an expected distribution under the same circumstances,
also due to variance.
lb