Author: ACDOCACDOC
Date: Jan 5, 2008 09:20
On Jan 5, 3:50 am, jbk...@ webtv.net (John B) wrote:
> This is where I become confused.
> You understand that "maybe not any" have mastered "dice influence" and
> yet you believe in the existence of players who can influence the dice.
> How do you justify this, unless it is your faith which does not require
> concrete evidence.
> =======
>
> I never said I believe players can influence the dice, I just said I
> believe in the possibility. When I said I bet on players that appear to
> be practicing the art, I never meant to imply that I believed they
> really were changing the outcome from random....I was just doing what
> Van said he did, why not try, doesn't hurt (at least not how I bet).
>
> JB
It's easy to demonstrate, using CHITEST in Excel, that a setter is
influencing the dice (or not). In other words, you can show that a
setter's toss is non random (or not). Also, it doesn't require
thousands of rolls if you examine individual "Influence Variables".
|