Why I hate this game!!!

I'm not sure why repetitious "dice rolls" still surprise or bother people. If the system is working right, the 6 result has as much chance to repeat as it does to subsequently produce any of the other 5 numbers. So a repetition--like a repeated 6--is no less of a likely result than 6, 2, 5, 4....or some other non repeating string of results.

Actually, that is not correct. There is a significantly less likely chance of rolling four sixes in a row than rolling a 6 followed by three non-repeating numbers that are not a six.

I'm not sure why repetitious "dice rolls" still surprise or bother people. If the system is working right, the 6 result has as much chance to repeat as it does to subsequently produce any of the other 5 numbers. So a repetition--like a repeated 6--is no less of a likely result than 6, 2, 5, 4....or some other non repeating string of results.

Actually, that is not correct. There is a significantly less likely chance of rolling four sixes in a row than rolling a 6 followed by three non-repeating numbers that are not a six.

Actually, it is correct. If the dice roll's chances are exactly equal, then it is always an equal chance the dice roll will repeat as a 6 as it would result in one of the other 5 numbers. The previous dice rolls would have no influence on the subsequent ones. So, a 6,6,6,6 result is as likely as any other particular string.

And I never said a 6,6,6,6 string was as likely as all other 4-digit strings combined in a continuing "dice-roll" system. I correctly said, as I said above, it is just as likely as all other particular 4-digit strings...and it is.

I correctly said, as I said above, it is just as likely as all other particular 4-digit strings...and it is.

No, that's not what you said above. What you said above was "So a repetition--like a repeated 6--is no less of a likely result than.... some other non repeating string of results".

That is not correct. It far less likely to roll four sixes (or any number) than to roll four non-repeating numbers.

I correctly said, as I said above, it is just as likely as all other particular 4-digit strings...and it is.

No, that's not what you said above. What you said above was "So a repetition--like a repeated 6--is no less of a likely result than.... some other non repeating string of results".

That is not correct. It far less likely to roll four sixes (or any number) than to roll four non-repeating numbers.

It is what I said. Saying something is just as likely Is the same as saying it's no less likely. And you keep misrepresenting my point. I never said 4 sixes was less likely than having a non-repeating result period. I said it was just as likely to occur as any other particular result. If you think otherwise, then show how that's wrong.

I never said 4 sixes was less likely than having a non-repeating result period. I said it was just as likely to occur as any other particular result. If you think otherwise, then show how that's wrong.

Huh? I know you never said that. That's what I'm trying to tell you - having 4 sixes IS less likely than having 4 non-repeating numbers.

I'm well aware that four sixes is as likely to occur as any other particular result. It is NOT as likely to occur as 4 non repeating numbers. Once again I'll post your exact quote "So a repetition--like a repeated 6--is no less of a likely result than....some other non repeating string of results". Did you not say that?

I never said 4 sixes was less likely than having a non-repeating result period. I said it was just as likely to occur as any other particular result. If you think otherwise, then show how that's wrong.

Huh? I know you never said that. That's what I'm trying to tell you - having 4 sixes IS less likely than having 4 non-repeating numbers.

I'm well aware that four sixes is as likely to occur as any other particular result. It is NOT as likely to occur as 4 non repeating numbers. Once again I'll post your exact quote "So a repetition--like a repeated 6--is no less of a likely result than....some other non repeating string of results". Did you not say that?

Wasting your time Knerrpool. He's just looking for someone to argue with and insult and for a thread to hijack and make about himself. Freeman and Coyote posted numbers to support your point earlier.

I never said 4 sixes was less likely than having a non-repeating result period. I said it was just as likely to occur as any other particular result. If you think otherwise, then show how that's wrong.

Huh? I know you never said that. That's what I'm trying to tell you - having 4 sixes IS less likely than having 4 non-repeating numbers.

I'm well aware that four sixes is as likely to occur as any other particular result. It is NOT as likely to occur as 4 non repeating numbers. Once again I'll post your exact quote "So a repetition--like a repeated 6--is no less of a likely result than....some other non repeating string of results". Did you not say that?

Cool, you're well aware that four sixes is as likely to occur than any other particular result. Good. That was my original argument, and we're in perfect agreement, and we're done.

As to that quote, it isn't my exact one, and you're presenting it as such isn't cool. If you still need to address that quote, please actually address it and my entire post-argument with my conclusion above. It perfectly shows I said what you missed. Otherwise, we're in complete agreement and we can move on.

I'm not sure why repetitious "dice rolls" still surprise or bother people. If the system is working right, the 6 result has as much chance to repeat as it does to subsequently produce any of the other 5 numbers. So a repetition--like a repeated 6--is no less of a likely result than 6, 2, 5, 4....or some other non repeating string of results. As to the 2-12 results, 7 and 8 are obviously more likely results than others, so their repetition should be even less surprising.

For information's sake, my second and third sentences says exactly what you claim "you know I never said."

As to that quote, it isn't my exact one, and you're presenting it as such isn't cool.

What do you mean it isn't your exact quote? The full sentence was: "So a repetition--like a repeated 6--is no less of a likely result than 6, 2, 5, 4....or some other non repeating string of results".

That sentence can be broken into two separate phrases:

1) "So a repetition--like a repeated 6--is no less of a likely result than 6, 2, 5, 4...."
This is a correct statement. I don't have an issue with this.

2) "So a repetition--like a repeated 6--is no less of a likely result than... some other non repeating string of results."
This is NOT a correct statement.

Goodbye, Knerrpool. You agree with my original argument, and I'm good with it still standing as such. And the first statement is a variation on the second...which is a correct one, too. And you just proved you didn't give my exact quote. Again, uncool.

And breaking the phrases loses the connecting "or" of my original sentence. So, try to not misquote me in the future.