alanback: i think she's going by the "feel" that if she hasn't doubled for a long time, it's certainly gotta happen. I know we can probably all remember a situation where we felt we were due and we got a double. But the ones we usually gloss over in our memories are the many times we felt were due and rolled 1-2 as usual and lost the game...i know i've selectively forgotten those a lot, simply bc i'm no masochist.

I don't want this to turn polemical, but I can't see a way of comparing a physical bat whose structure changes, at least at a quantum level, every time it encounters an outside force. If you throw enough balls at 100 mph at a bat, it'll break eventually, and we can't predict when or how, since the grooves of wooden bats can cause premature fractures.

Slot machines, too, ARE programmed to pay off based on a pre-programmed factor, some as a % of the total take when a discrete number is reached, some chronologically. But the time-based ones are on such a wide time frame that i've never heard of anyone successfully timing one to the extent that they've made more money than they wasted in the interim. So the odds do change with every try, albeit not to the extent we can take advantage of it.

But virtual dice? If they are perfectly random, by definition there can't be any change in the odds because there is no physical wear and the same algorithm "starts fresh" every roll. Some have argued that the BK dice have a "boolean flaw" and that no dice algorithm can be perfectly random to begin with. Nevertheless, I'd sure like to see the proof. Maybe Fencer would show us the source of his randomizer, but honestly I wouldn't even bother to look at it!