"sflowers330;1550904" wrote:
You may not be familiar with it, but in programming a truely random number is very difficult to achieve and the subject of much discussion amoung computer science experts.
Computers use pseudorandom numbers for that reason, but the results are basically indistinguishable at the level humans generally use them.
You are being far too literal about the 1 in 3 thing. It is not a statistical anomaly for it not be exactly one third each. If you tossed a coin 300 times it is extremely unlikely you would get exactly 150 heads and 150 tails, and even a 130/170 split would not be particularly suspicious given the relatively small sample size.
I have been 939 for a while and my experience would indicate that it is a perfectly straightforward pseudorandom selection every time ... and that is the point. We perceive patterns because that is what humans do and odd-seeming runs of certain results happen because every set of boxes is selected at random at the time, and has zero bearing on what the next selection might be.
It is also easier to program a random selection than a complex pattern, which would make it the logical design choice for something that appears so frequently in the game.
And ... why do do many people call us computer science experts rather than what we are, which is computer scientists?
