In a message dated 7/20/2003 5:11:35 AM Central Daylight Time,
gamb00ler.vp1@cox.net writes:
>
>>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
Actually, I did not make this statement. It should be attributed to ljboxer,
I believe, and I had some problem with the reasoning, though the first
sentence fairly encapsulates my earlier post.
Chandler
"...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat,
plausible, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ยทยทยท
>cmayhem@aol.com wrote: