| I think you’re getting confused? Or we’re talking past each other? Knowing the outcome of a die roll after the roll doesn’t make the roll of the die non-random. Any more than the die coming up 6 a bunch of times in a row does. Though maybe it would be a good idea to check the weight/balance of it, hah. Knowing what the last card has to be after all the other cards have been played doesn’t make the process which made that card the last card any less random either. Picking cards off a deck isn’t a randomization/non-randomization event, shuffling the deck is what does that. Probability however, which directly impacts gameplay in some kinds of games, is directly impacted by knowledge exposed during gameplay. So for instance, the second to last card (and also the last card) can be known with about 50/50 odds (probability wise) if someone is good at counting, which is damn good! Way better than 1/2704 odds of guessing a sequence of two cards at the start of the deck. In the example of the broken hardware random number generator, knowledge of the defect can be used to attack a system if it assumes a continuous probability distribution out it’s outputs, if the attacker knows this. The same as an attacker at a casino could probably manipulate a game to make money if they knew something was broken in the deck shuffling and the same two cards were always at some position in a ‘new’ deck. |
Exactly, same page then. The card not being random at the end of game frame of reference places no limitation that it was random from the beginning of the game frame of reference. In the end of game reference the last card is never random, it's only ever the remaining card. In the beginning game reference which card will end up being the last card is still random at that point despite it ceasing to be from the later frame.