Grim Reaper: I don't object to pre-rolled dice at all, in fact I'd like it. I'd like to be able to decline a doubling cube and then know what rolls my opponent and I were going to get so that I can sigh with relief or kick myself.


"For example, a chess program that uses a transposition table to store positions that are encountered frequently can actually stuff more positions into the same amount of RAM with a better random number generator used to stamp the tokens used as the masks. Better randomness in these "hash tables" can also allow for faster retrieval of the data in these RAM buffers."

Congratulations - you've achieved a very high technobabble score! .. Getting back to the dice... ;-)


I don't think "Mr Profile"'s objection is to runs of doubles as such. I'd say it probably refers to cases where a couple of doubles during the bearoff (consecutive or not) has made a losing difference. Perhaps he doesn't appreciate that doubles occur, on average, once in every six rolls.

The issue of doubles, and lucky dice in general, is more a function of the mind than of the dice themselves. Fix the rolls in all sorts of ways and there will still be an ever growing selection of people making assertions about their "The dice are fixed" perceptions, not realising that they are cataloging and remembering the rolls inaccurately. Four "consecutive" double sixes, for instance, may have actually occurred with a 3-4 rolled in the middle. The cry that goes up whenever someone complains about unfair dice is always "Don't just say it, show us the record". And rightly so.


It's an interesting idea, tampering with the random sequence. I've never seen 5 consecutive double-sixes, let alone 8, so I wouldn't care about removing those sort of patterns. What I'd be more interested in is not being stuck on the bar when there's an open point. Nine rolls on the trot and I can't get one of the 11/36 rolls that will let me in? That's beyond belief! But it "happens regularly" (), so let's fix that one please.