Quote

Quote from: bfisher1968 on September 28, 2015, 07:19:09 PM

The result is independent.

If I give you 10 rolls, can you predict the next? No. That is referred to as independence here, of the result.

The 11th roll is dependent on the server seed, client seed, and nonce and the previous rolls.

Example:

roll 1: 0.65
roll 2: 0.23
roll 3: 0.99
roll 4: 0.55
roll 5: 0.09
roll 6: 0.13
roll 7: 0.33
roll 8: 0.67
roll 9: 0.04
roll 10: 0.97

I would be willing to bet that the next roll will be higher then 1. But without the knowledge of the previous 10 bets I wouldn't.

At the same time I would like to see a server seed, client seed, nonce produce rolls anywhere close to what I listed.

1. Above post by Shogen explains significant stuff you are supposed to know. If you don't understand, hash some number using SHA256, SHA512, find a pattern, bankrupt a couple of dice sites and come back. Grin

2.

Quote

I would be willing to bet that the next roll will be higher then 1. But without the knowledge of the previous 10 bets I wouldn't.

Gambler's fallacy.

3. If say all the rolls are dependent on each other as you said how come you are betting that the next roll will be higher and not lower than 1? That is a weird of thinking, lol.

Quote

At the same time I would like to see a server seed, client seed, nonce produce rolls anywhere close to what I listed.

Getting 10 rolls less than 1 has around (0.01)^10 probability.
Getting the next roll below 1 after that has 1% chance, above 1 has 99% chance as usual.
If you disagree read : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Quote

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e., independent trials of a random process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false. This fallacy can arise in many practical situations although it is most strongly associated with gambling where such mistakes are common among players.