LOL. Urm.PLAYER57832 wrote:You roll more sixes at home because those rolls are LESS random.
I see an abnormally randomly high amount of defender sixes here at CC. Didn't mean to type so fast. (btw. I don't roll dice at home when I take my turns)
Moderator: Community Team
LOL. Urm.PLAYER57832 wrote:You roll more sixes at home because those rolls are LESS random.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
king sam wrote: quit facebook stalking me... and Im a sailor all I do is drunk, cuss and make illegitimate kids when Im away from CC
dont sig that
Yes they do. They pick them up from atmospheric noise.Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers

Explain in more deatil how atmospheric noise creates random numbers please. That is what I meant.natty_dread wrote:Yes they do. They pick them up from atmospheric noise.Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers
king sam wrote: quit facebook stalking me... and Im a sailor all I do is drunk, cuss and make illegitimate kids when Im away from CC
dont sig that
Sigh... I already have in the past. Perhaps you just don't read each and every one of my posts...AgentSmith88 wrote:Explain in more deatil how atmospheric noise creates random numbers please. That is what I meant.natty_dread wrote:Yes they do. They pick them up from atmospheric noise.Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers

Good to know. Random.org should post that. Saying they use atmospheric noise to generate numbers doesn't really explain anything at all. You did.natty_dread wrote:Sigh... I already have in the past. Perhaps you just don't read each and every one of my posts...AgentSmith88 wrote:Explain in more deatil how atmospheric noise creates random numbers please. That is what I meant.natty_dread wrote:Yes they do. They pick them up from atmospheric noise.Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers
You have atmospheric noise, which is radiation (like radio waves). You pick up said noise with a receiver and run the signal through an ADC (analog-digital-converter) and sample it at whatever frequency and whatever bitrate (they have probably ran tests on which settings get best results) and you get an endless stream of random 1:s and 0:s from which all digital numbers are composed of.
Very simple really.
king sam wrote: quit facebook stalking me... and Im a sailor all I do is drunk, cuss and make illegitimate kids when Im away from CC
dont sig that
No sir, a stupid statement would be to claim that I have ever said that "pure randomness does not exist"...perhaps you can point out where I said that? Go ahead...find it for me. Yeah, that's what I thought.AgentSmith88 wrote:OK, maybe we should define random for those who think "randomness" is impossible to achieve. In statistics, random means unable to predict the outcome. Which means if I flip a regular coin, the outcome will be random because you cannot predict what the outcome will be. This doesn't mean that the probability (in this case 50/50) can't be calculated, it means the outcome cannot be predicted. So woody, saying that pure randomness does not exist is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.
Incorrect. If the die is not perfectly symmetrical, then the "randomness" is not true because it will still be weighted to favor certain numbers. Due to that weightedness, the results CAN be somewhat predicted, thus it is not "random". It may not be LOADED (meaning highly likely to hit certain combinations), but LOADED is simply an extreme form of weightedness.AgentSmith88 wrote:If an algorithm is used to create "random" numbers, then they are not truly random since using math the outcomes can be predicted. Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers, I can't tell you whether they are truly random or not. I do know that a "standard" die may not be perfectly symmetrical, but assuming that it isn't loaded, you cannot truly predict what the result will be, hence making the outcome RANDOM.






You've realized your arguments are faulty and so your only recourse now is to attack me?Agent 86 wrote:Listen to Woodruff, he thinks he's spock and knows everything. 1 v 1 is about drop and going first, intensity cubes ( how ridiculous to call them this ) Dice will always be random. The dice work on atmospheric noise generated from woodruffs brain..totally random.
Don't pick a fight with me woodruff you insolent fool, go play startrek with someone else's thread.
86
natty_dread wrote:Sigh... I already have in the past. Perhaps you just don't read each and every one of my posts...AgentSmith88 wrote:Explain in more deatil how atmospheric noise creates random numbers please. That is what I meant.natty_dread wrote:Yes they do. They pick them up from atmospheric noise.Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers
You have atmospheric noise, which is radiation (like radio waves). You pick up said noise with a receiver and run the signal through an ADC (analog-digital-converter) and sample it at whatever frequency and whatever bitrate (they have probably ran tests on which settings get best results) and you get an endless stream of random 1:s and 0:s from which all digital numbers are composed of.
Very simple really.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
You are an idiot and obviously didn't read what I posted. If a die is perfectly symmetrical the PROBABILITY that a 6 will land is ~16.67%. If the die were slightly assymetrical perhaps the PROBABILITY of a 6 landing would be 17%. Either way, you can't predict the outcome of said roll. You can say that the PROBABILITY of a 6 landing is 17%. But you can't say that because a die has rolled 16 6's in 99 rolls that on the 100th roll is MUST be a 6. That would be predictabilty, and hence not random (Because the opposite of random is predictable, at least in statistics). Unless the outcome has a 100% probablity, the outcome is random, because the outcome cannot be predicted.Woodruff wrote:No sir, a stupid statement would be to claim that I have ever said that "pure randomness does not exist"...perhaps you can point out where I said that? Go ahead...find it for me. Yeah, that's what I thought.AgentSmith88 wrote:OK, maybe we should define random for those who think "randomness" is impossible to achieve. In statistics, random means unable to predict the outcome. Which means if I flip a regular coin, the outcome will be random because you cannot predict what the outcome will be. This doesn't mean that the probability (in this case 50/50) can't be calculated, it means the outcome cannot be predicted. So woody, saying that pure randomness does not exist is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.
I make enough stupid statements on my own, I don't need you making them up for me too.
Incorrect. If the die is not perfectly symmetrical, then the "randomness" is not true because it will still be weighted to favor certain numbers. Due to that weightedness, the results CAN be somewhat predicted, thus it is not "random". It may not be LOADED (meaning highly likely to hit certain combinations), but LOADED is simply an extreme form of weightedness.AgentSmith88 wrote:If an algorithm is used to create "random" numbers, then they are not truly random since using math the outcomes can be predicted. Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers, I can't tell you whether they are truly random or not. I do know that a "standard" die may not be perfectly symmetrical, but assuming that it isn't loaded, you cannot truly predict what the result will be, hence making the outcome RANDOM.
king sam wrote: quit facebook stalking me... and Im a sailor all I do is drunk, cuss and make illegitimate kids when Im away from CC
dont sig that
I've had good dice today. Random my ass!Timminz wrote:Damn! Look at all that stupid.
Edit- shit! How did this turn into another dice bitch thread?
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Jedi Master, the ironicism is strong within this one.AgentSmith88 wrote: You are an idiot and obviously didn't read what I posted.
Sorry, but woody is correct. And no, you don't understand that the outcome of a die flipped is far more predictable than those randome algorythms. When you study some advanced math .. not just basic Calculus and stats, but the heavy stuff, then maybe you can come back and talk. Until then... sorry, but you are showing what you don't know, not what you know.AgentSmith88 wrote:OK, maybe we should define random for those who think "randomness" is impossible to achieve. In statistics, random means unable to predict the outcome. Which means if I flip a regular coin, the outcome will be random because you cannot predict what the outcome will be. This doesn't mean that the probability (in this case 50/50) can't be calculated, it means the outcome cannot be predicted. You can compute the probability that heads will be flipped 1,000 times in a row, but not the actual outcome. So woody, saying that pure randomness does not exist is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.[
If an algorithm is used to create "random" numbers, then they are not truly random since using math the outcomes can be predicted. Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers, I can't tell you whether they are truly random or not. I do know that a "standard" die may not be perfectly symmetrical, but assuming that it isn't loaded, you cannot truly predict what the result will be, hence making the outcome RANDOM.
Woodruff wrote:Team games absolutely do NOT "reduce the streak in the dice". In fact, that doesn't even make basic sense.Agent 86 wrote:Well as soon as my tourney games and singles games finish, I will only play team games from now on. This reduces the streak in dice. Just check out the top players on this site. Of course this doesn't count the freestylers who can get around this. Not an option for someone in China with slow connection.
86

The streaks are all still there, there are just more of them. So the good and bad streaks cancel out, but there are still streaks.Bruceswar wrote:Woodruff wrote:Team games absolutely do NOT "reduce the streak in the dice". In fact, that doesn't even make basic sense.Agent 86 wrote:Well as soon as my tourney games and singles games finish, I will only play team games from now on. This reduces the streak in dice. Just check out the top players on this site. Of course this doesn't count the freestylers who can get around this. Not an option for someone in China with slow connection.
86
Sure it makes 100% sense. You have 2, 3 or 4 people rolling vs one. More people rolling = more even dice. One person's bad dice can be made up by another person's good rolls. This is why team game players generally have high win percentages
No, that's because they play against noobs who don't know how to co-operate as a team.This is why team game players generally have high win percentages

That does NOT "reduce the streak in the dice" at all. The dice are as the dice are. Your PERCEPTION of the streakiness in the dice changes.Bruceswar wrote:Woodruff wrote:Team games absolutely do NOT "reduce the streak in the dice". In fact, that doesn't even make basic sense.Agent 86 wrote:Well as soon as my tourney games and singles games finish, I will only play team games from now on. This reduces the streak in dice. Just check out the top players on this site. Of course this doesn't count the freestylers who can get around this. Not an option for someone in China with slow connection.
86
Sure it makes 100% sense. You have 2, 3 or 4 people rolling vs one. More people rolling = more even dice. One person's bad dice can be made up by another person's good rolls. This is why team game players generally have high win percentages