I think an important aspect of Robert's work is that he set out to do this to accomplish something. He didn't set out to debunk an idea he considered dumb. So he kept trying stuff to see if they could get anything to

work. And we rolled a lot and we were not able to minimize the number of sevens at any point in time. Basically the short answer is, wow, you know, we tried under lots of different conditions. I really, you know, this is important. I really wanted it to work because all the mathematicians said it wasn't possible and there's nothing more fun than showing that they're, you know, the people are wrong, right? They say, you know, conventional wisdom says this isn't possible, well, our machine can do it. You know, I mean, that would have been like great, you know, instead you're kind of having to prove a negative, you know, I mean, you're having to prove this negative, but I really wanted it to work. I mean, I was, you know, myself and the students I had working with me, you know, we were kind of desperate to, we really wanted it. But you know, we just, there was, there was one point where we had a series of roles that produced results that were non-random and it was very consistent and it was probably about a series of two hours of rolling and we were able to pull out that section and, you know, it was really, it was clearly not, not random, but that was it. You know, that was the only section and the only time where we produced, where they, you know, where results were produced that, that showed a consistent, clearly statistically significant difference from random. The only problem with that was, was it didn't give us the results we were anticipating. Basically, we were wanting to minimize, for example, the ones and the sixes. That was what we wanted to do. Like the ones and the sixes for both dice were on the, on the ends. And so we wanted fewer ones and sixes. We actually, I can't remember exactly off top of my head, but it was like, we were getting way, way more sixes, you know, than a, so it was sort of like, okay, it's not, it's different from random, but it's not what we, what we wanted. But you know, but then I thought, well, maybe that goes back to Wong's argument of, of dice correlation because even in Wong on dice, he says, I don't think dice control is possible. We could throw the dice. But what I think can happen is you can have a correlation between the two dice. So we tested that and, you know, found that wasn't really the case. There were times when we could get the machine to really produce non-random outcomes. One of the ways we were able to look at it was with the high speed camera, we could basically see, okay, have the dice in the exact same configuration, right? Dice are cubes and they're all set up the same way where the, the opposite opposing sides always add up to seven. So one is always opposite the six, five is always opposite the two, right, and three is always opposite the four. So every dice is configured the same way. I actually argue, you know, I don't know if I do this in the papers, but I've argued that, you know, if, if, if dice control were possible, the casinos could use dice that were simply randomized, right? Where the, you know, where the one in the six are, you know, right, right next to each other. Yeah, I mean, yeah, see, you could do some crazy things. But anyway, so they're all configured the same way. So we basically set up the dice where they were the same. And then with the high speed camera, we were able to watch the machine, you know, hit the dice roll and land. And we could, we basically were able to dial the machine into the point where we could get the dice to land, you know, the same, basically the same side that it should, you know, where it's basically spinning on those four front faces and eliminating the side pieces where the dice would land consistently on that, that, you know, flat, you know, side.