This goes back to the potential pitfalls of assuming too much about the thing you are studying, and how setting one's bench mark too high as a result can possibly lead to one overlooking relevant (but less dramatic) data.

I am not a mathematician, but I would think 30-50 trials ought to be pretty decent. I guess one way to find out how many trials I will need is to roll a die until I am close to an even distribution of results, then repeat rolling the die X amount of times to ensure the even distribution is constant at that number of rolls, and then aim for that number of trials in my experiment.

What do you think?