So, shall we give you the benifit of the doubt for a bit and allow you to post some more complete math rather than gainsaying middel school math with what appear to be crude approximations.
...
Maybe you could summon up some links to some authoritative works on 'propensity theroy' for the edification of your peers around here, as my cursory studies suggest that while the philisophical constructs are different, the math is the same.
You want links, we have links:
Hájek, Alan "Fifteen Arguments Against Hypothetical Frequentism". Erkenntnis (March 2009) 211-235.
http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/people-defaults/alanh/papers/fifteen.pdf
However, I'll also admit that almost all probability methodologies have problems: the single case problem for frequency probability, Humphery's Paradox for propensity interpretation, and so on.
Due to the fact that frequency interpretation requires perfect repeatability to generate accurate results, and that no two die throws are the same due to sensitivity to initial conditions, it is impossible to determine exactly how biased a die is in a given throw. (Indeed, I've seen many of our 'peers' spend hours trying to determine a die's bias [though they don't call it that] before purchasing one at a FLGS, only to have it roll poorly in another setting).
The reason I chose the methodology that I did was that, due to the aforementioned inability to determine the precise bias of the die, each toss should be treated as a single case, though there are only a handful of possible outcomes. In each case, I took the most likely favorable outcome, and used it as the basis for the next state.
In the case of four Aboats flying into four turrets, the most likely favorable outcome is two Aboats get through, and so on.
While the methodology may or may not be independent of the 'fairness' of the die, the accuracy of it's outcome is absolutely dependent on how biased the die actually is. A die with a very strong bias toward rolling a six in the hands of the attacker can turn even a single ship into an unstoppable juggernaut. A strong bias in the hands of the defender can make a ship invincible. Since we cannot pre-sample the die to make an educated guess as to the nature of it's bias, broadly speaking, using frequency, we have to treat it as a single case.
Endevouring to the be fair sort I aspire to be, I've spent some time slogging though the fillibuster you linked to to see if it might genuinely enlighten me. So much of it seems so flawed I struggle as to where to begin. Round about page twelve the author pulls what looks like a strawman wherein he mentions a thought experiment in which an allegidly fair coin is tossed a thousand times and comes up with one outcome 471 times rather than the anticipated 500. The author then goes on to proclaim this an unresolveable paradox. It's not. There are several solutions, some he suggests, like the coin not truely being fair, and that the empierical result is a measure of the true probaility, or that the trial was insufficiently lengthy and rigourous. My initial reaction upon reading the trought experiment was that this was well within the bounds of the pseudo normal behaviour and close to the peak of the curve of likely outcomes and that if further thousand iteration trials were conducted we might see some with more and others with less than 500. Maybe this falls in the catagory of an insufficiently lengthy and rigourosus trial, but, if I'd tossed a coin a thousand times and recored the results, I'd honestly be suprised to get 500 of any one result, the modal result is really just a small portion of the solution space and 471 is right close by.
It would appear that there is some schools of thought I've not been made privy to yet, but so far the link provided has failed to provide that I'd hoped to get in thei initial request, which is, in a nut shell, what is 'propensity' theroy, and how does it differ from 'freaquentism'. As right now, the whole thing feels like the kind of hogwash literature students attempt to pull when faced with a math challenge, and I'd dearly like to think this isn't the case.
To second 'Dark Depth' even if your dice aren't fair, the game idesign is predicated on fair dice, and without this initial assupmtion, the whole thing collapses. I might sugggest that the use of 'fair' random number generators is an implicite rule of the game and that to not is to cheat.