You still have a 21% chance of throwing 159 or less 7s in 1000 throws. Not convincing.

Or I'd have to see what 7craps just posted about. That would convince me.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47/science-math-philosophy/statistics-question-calculating-required-sample-size-271828/

Do not put WongBo down.

It comes down to the degree of certainty and margin of error wanted.

If it is really all about just rolling less 7s than a certain acceptable range of outcomes,

and we know it is not...

For the range of a random shooter (DI would have to be outside that range more times)

The standard deviation for the binomial distribution is sqrt(Npq) = sqrt(N*1/6*5/6).

Say we want N such that 0.01*N = 3.09025 standard deviations.

This would be a CL of 99.9% with a error of 0.01(1%)

0.01*N = 3.09025*sqrt(N*1/6*5/6)

N = (3.09025/0.01)^2*(1/6*5/6)

N= 572,978.70

The error rate is about 1/sqrt(N)

The SD range and margin of error can be lowered. (lower the overall certainty)

a CL of 95% with an error of 0.01

1.959964 SD

N=230,487.53

Still too high?

a CL of 90% with an error of 0.01

1.644854 SD

N=230,487.53

Maybe just a .05 (5%) error rate instead

N=6,493.31

===================================

OK

How about a 50% CL and a 10% error rate

N=272.96

Nice!!!!

Last offer

An 80% CL with a 13.5% error rate

N=540.70

added: (cashed on the Jets $$$... got to love NFL home dogs!)

IMO,

Any DI that claims to roll less 7s should beat any random range consistently.

Not really sorry for all the math.

The numbers can be agreed upon, but are still only meaningful to a certain degree of confidence.

No one really wants to be confident in any DI claim.

Just have faith and bet with the DI.

Especially Ahigh, he IS 1 in a million.

Special talents with the dice.

Even if you have an edge as a DI, you better make the right bets,

or you are just as -EV as the rest.

Even blind Gorillas throwing the dice can do this.Quote:dwheatleyYou have a ~6% chance of throwing 148 or less 7s in 1000 throws. That's somewhat convincing, but not really enough.

You still have a 21% chance of throwing 159 or less 7s in 1000 throws. Not convincing.

Nothing special we can all agree

No convincing needed.Quote:dwheatleyI'd be convinced around a 1% chance, so 2100 throws for 14.8%, and 13'000 throws for 15.9%.

Or I'd have to see what 7craps just posted about. That would convince me.

My idea since large sample sizes are too large,

set the number of dice rolls to 36 per session.

Since 1 in 21 random shooters would roll 0,1 or 2 - 7s (EV=6)

The DI would have to do better.

or

Since 1 in 86 random shooters would roll 0 or1 - 7s (EV=6)

The DI would have to do better more times on average to win some confidence.

Maybe just back to back

Quote:7crapsNo convincing needed.

My idea since large sample sizes are too large,

set the number of dice rolls to 36 per session.

Since 1 in 21 random shooters would roll 0,1 or 2 - 7s (EV=6)

The DI would have to do better.

or

Since 1 in 86 random shooters would roll 0 or1 - 7s (EV=6)

The DI would have to do better more times on average to win some confidence.

How can someone do better than rolling no 7s?

0,1 or 2 per 36 rolls

1 in 21 is an average as you know.

They would just have to do better than average per 36 roll session

I can't do it

Quote:tuppHow many rolls would satisfy you if someone claims that they can roll 15.9% (or less) 7s?

... How about if they claim 14.8% (or less) 7s?

I am not a 'math guy' anymore, but I'll bet any sum you want that 148 or fewer out of 1000 won't be acheived.

A 'math guy' here will probably say that 148 or lower would happen a few percent of the time by normal variance, but I'll take that chance.

The 15.9% would require too many rolls to be practical for me to get involved in, likely 10000 rolls...