Quote from: keepinquiet on June 02, 2015, 10:45:53 AM

Quote from: tspacepilot on June 02, 2015, 06:17:59 AM

Quote from: Coef on June 02, 2015, 06:14:22 AM

Quote from: tspacepilot on June 02, 2015, 05:45:24 AM

In a truly-fair array of 30 random numbers 1-6, the crucial property is that you cannot predict at all how many times each number should be represented. In a single draw of 30 random numbers, if they're truly random, they might be all 1s, you don't know untill you draw. Now, if the numbers are truly random then the long-term expected average distribution should approach an equal distribution of 1,2,3,4,5,6 as you sample size approaches infinity. But it's simply not correct to say that if you draw 30 random numbers from 1-6 that you can expect to find them equally distributed---that would be a decidely non-random distribution.

Correct. But the main problem I see here is that the generation process of that 30 numbers is not described clearly.
The site may be doing it fairly, or may be not. We simply don't know about that, and so it is not provably fair.

I see (better now), thanks. I wanted to clarify that part of the OP just to make sure I wasn't completely misunderstanding.

Yep. WHile you're right, it could be all 1's - since the generation of THOSE numbers is, as they put it, "random" it could be anything, including intentionally skewing the weight of numbers in their favor based on your betting history.

Actually, intentially skewing would be a form of non-random. I just think it's crucial to get the terms right in these sorts of conversations to avoid confusino

Quote

Until those numbers are provably fair, the entire system isn't.

Yes, I understand the issue now.