Response to DnT:

My apologies if I came off condescending.  My entire career I have worked with numbers and have a “feel” for probabilities, but I was not totally sure that you were incorrect.  I was just hoping you would post your calculations so I could identify the issues.  It is definitely a tough problem, so figured would be best to work together.

Normally I would just ignore this error, but please look up the difference between “your” and “you’re.”  I mean this sincerely because such blatant errors are red flags for sloppy thinking in the professional world.  You state that you are a CEO in your signature, so I am hoping you will take some pride in what you post.  Also your sentences are so poorly constructed that it is sometimes difficult to understand your meaning.  It is a forum, so minor errors and fragments are expected.  But your terrible writing really does make it difficult to understand your meaning sometimes.  For example, your “sentence” under 4.  It is difficult to interpet, but I will do my best.  You should really try using periods and constructing proper sentences.  Sentences are truly easier to understand than rambling fragments.
With respect to your points:

1. I wrote in my initial post, “Don't mean to be hard on you or anything,” because I did not want you to take it personally.  Being wrong really isn’t a big deal.  People make mistakes all the time.  We are human, and it is a part of the human condition.  As I stated initially, I just don’t want your misguided analysis to mislead others.

2. ASICMiner’s rate of discovering blocks is certainly NOT a poission process. As I wrote earlier, this does not mean that the results are not poisson DISTRIBUTED.  But again, I can state with great certainty that the distribution of AM’s mined blocks is NOT poission distributed.  It is likely a reasonable approximation for large periods of time assuming NONSTATIONARY DATA, but it is certainly not reasonable for a 6 hour period.  It is also not reasonable assumption for an individual miner’s results.  For the entire network, a poission distribution seems appropriate.

3. You failed to consider much more than that.  

4. This point is the fundamental error in your analysis.  Again, please try to think about this for a second before responding.  Yes, your calculations are reasonable for a GIVEN 6 hour period.  But you are trying to apply these questions to answer the question, “What is the probability that a 6 hour period will occur with 0 blocks?”  I admit that I am assuming a bit, but it seems to be the intent of your calculations.  The probability that 0 blocks will be found in a GIVEN 6 hour period IS MUCH DIFFERENT than the probability that a 6 hour period will occur in which no blocks are found.  Please think about this for a second…It’s really not that difficult.  

“there is a 97% probability that the zero blocks founds is NOT due to bad luck and instead due to some non luck reason.”  These are exactly the type of statements that reveal your ignorance of probability and statistics.  All events are the result of luck and “non-luck” to use your term, regardless of the resulting value.  You can say things like, “wow, that is lucky.”  Meaning a low probability event occurred.  Yet all outcomes are equally a product of luck and other “non-luck” factors…

I apologize if I came off as a bit of an ass, but I think you are just overreacting to me pointing out the errors in your calculations / logic.

EDIT:  I believe you edited in that part to add the part about being wrong?  Glad you edited that part, and I totally agree.  You should definitely become accustomed to being incorrect.