Any player who never has that scenario come up isn't playing enough (or just doesn't like to play against Voss).
Your evocation of the law of large numbers is the same rational that keeps gamblers poor
which is funny considering how much he's argued against certain statistic things being 'so low chance you shouldn't worry about them' or similar statements.
*gets popcorn* Well this is gonna be interesting.
*steals some of Drakossozh's popcorn*
*acquires ice cream, steals some popcorn, flicks popcorn at Silverleaf*
*sets up a game of Sentinels in the corner*
*is done with the conversation, so doesn't really know what the popcorn's for, but sticks around to watch with mild curiosity*
Popcorn, ice cream and Sentinels? Could this day get any better?
*Brings the Tacos*
What is this party for?
Fun and heroics!
Right? 
Omgtacos!
It got better.
I lost track about six posts ago. Can I have a taco?
Sorry to disappoint, folks...I had no intention of arguing this statistics thing, because it doesn't really pertain to this issue. A game of SOTM is not a roulette wheel...heroes' HP starts the game at a predetermined amount, so there are relatively narrow ranges of possible outcomes. In a sufficiently large number of SOTM games, it's extremely probable that Voss will end up double-punching a hero at some point...it's built into the game's mechanics, especially with characters like the Scholar that are built for tanking, and cards like Smoke Bombs that encourage players to stay at the same HP total. The text of the cards, not exclusively luck, will be what determines whether this situation arises...if you fight Voss more than twice or thrice, it's extremely likely you'll see this happen, or at least be able to tell that it could have.
Someone doesn't understand statistics at all.
Whoever's been breaking off these off-track conversations into their own topics is doing a great job. Keep it up! It's fun to see a new topic appear with a crazy title like "let's argue about statistics" or "discussions about grammar" and think "why would someone want to do something like that?" only to realize that it had already happened in another thread. Plus, it helps to keep things neat and clean around here, which I'm sure our mothers would all appreciate.
Yay, go moderators! (Or whoever it is.)
One thing about the break-outs though, they tend to start mid-stream (of course). This one, for example, references a scenario that we can't see because it's still back in the original thread. If you weren't following the original topic thread, you may have a hard time figuring out what the heck is going on. Maybe there's some way to indicate when a thread is a break-off from some other one so people won't be disoriented.
I just noticed that I've now gone off-topic in an off-topic thread. How meta...
Its me. Its always me... :)
Yeah, it would be nice if the break-off thread automatically referenced the originating thread. However, the power to split threads (with which I am already going mad) was brought to me by Joel writing a custom plugin for our forum, and adding other features like that is farther down on the priority list than other Super Important Website Programmy Projects from Joel.
Is anyone keeping statistics on the broken off threads?