Round 6 in a dubs game and I have taken 1 tert so far!
Moderator: Community Team
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Just chill, play the actual board game and you'll see that these losses happen quite a lot.pie12345 wrote:ok now again my freaking dice are messed up you cant win any fucking games
"What it is" is human nature and a self-centered outlook. For the dice to be bad for someone, they also have to be good for someone. That's pretty much a requirement.Goldbar wrote:Him "in particular"....and ALOT of other people claim the dice are bad.Woodruff wrote: Let's think this through for a moment...you claim that the dice are bad. This is based on the fact that you in particular have been unlucky with them
I know what it is...they all got together and started a conspiracy to complain about the dice.Yeah,thats what it is.
Oh, I have no doubt at all that they are honest opinions. Unfortunately, honesty doesn't equate to accuracy.Goldbar wrote:it couldnt possibly be a bunch of independent players giving their honest opinion on on the lopsided results that the dice come up with in this game.
So how often have you rolled hundreds of thousands of dice in a day to determine this "fact"?Goldbar wrote:The dice in the game do not even come close to resembling what real dice would roll.
Again, how often have you rolled hundreds of thousands of dice in a day to determine what "random real dice" would roll?Goldbar wrote:I play quite a few games with dice(not computer dice),risk,backgammon,yahtzee,and I can tell you that CC dice do not simulate what random real dice would roll in any way shape or form.
No...if you understand what the term "random" means, you would not expect that. People who DO expect that are the same folks who are suckers for the counter/display on a roulette table that shows what numbers and colors have come up recently.Moop wrote:You would think, that if the dice were random, then there would be as many good rolls as bad.
Woodruff wrote:
Goldbar wrote:
Him "in particular"....and ALOT of other people claim the dice are bad.Woodruff wrote:Let's think this through for a moment...you claim that the dice are bad. This is based on the fact that you in particular have been unlucky with them
I know what it is...they all got together and started a conspiracy to complain about the dice.Yeah,thats what it is.
"What it is" is human nature and a self-centered outlook. For the dice to be bad for someone, they also have to be good for someone. That's pretty much a requirement.
Moop wrote:You would think, that if the dice were random, then there would be as many good rolls as bad.
Woodruff wrote: No...if you understand what the term "random" means, you would not expect that. People who DO expect that are the same folks who are suckers for the counter/display on a roulette table that shows what numbers and colors have come up recently.
Woodruff wrote:"What it is" is human nature and a self-centered outlook. For the dice to be bad for someone, they also have to be good for someone. That's pretty much a requirement.Moop wrote:Him "in particular"....and ALOT of other people claim the dice are bad.Woodruff wrote: Let's think this through for a moment...you claim that the dice are bad. This is based on the fact that you in particular have been unlucky with them
know what it is...they all got together and started a conspiracy to complain about the dice.Yeah,thats what it is.
No, I did not leave out the second two. I left out the last line, which wasn't particularly relevant to the issue. My responses were directed at Goldbar rather than yourself (if that's why you believe it changed the context...I recognize you were not disagreeing with me). I simply used your statements as launching-points for my responses.Moop wrote:lol, I only wrote three lines and you chose to leave the second two out, which completely changes the context of the line you quoted.Woodruff wrote:No...if you understand what the term "random" means, you would not expect that. People who DO expect that are the same folks who are suckers for the counter/display on a roulette table that shows what numbers and colors have come up recently.Moop wrote:You would think, that if the dice were random, then there would be as many good rolls as bad.
I absolutely did poorly word my second statement. What I was referring to in the second statement is people who do expect "as many good rolls as bad for themselves". But I accept that I worded it in a way that definitely did not make that clear and made it appear as though I was contradicting my earlier statement. Hopefully this makes it more clear that I was not contradicting myself. And I believe my reference to the roulette table display is quite apt, for those who know what I'm referring to.Moop wrote:You also contradicted yourself. Nice work, you should be a lawyer or something.
If you use the counter/display at all, you are, at best, simply not helping yourself. At best. And that has not as much to do with individual numbers as it does red/black and the thirds that you mention.Moop wrote: On the other hand when Im playing Roulette I find the counter/display very useful, I dont put money on individual numbers though, I generally play 1st/2nd/3rds which more often than not will win you money.
There's nothing theoretical about it. That is, there is, but it's very much a reality as well. And you really can't use what has already happened as a "rough guide" for what is going to happen. It might feel like you can, but statistics isn't some purely theoretical thought experiment.Moop wrote:Although I understand the principle that everytime a dice is thrown or the roulette wheel spun the odds are equal to every number no matter what has happened before, in practise, it more often than not, doesn't quite pan out that way. You can use what has happened before as a rough guide, Im not saying its fool proof and of course theoretically what has happened before plays no deciding factor on the next number, but next time you see a roulette wheel give it a shot on thirds. I play 2 thirds at a time, at 2 to 1, same bet each time, its not get rich quick, and its very boring, but the risks are less. I usually walk away with around 15% more than I walked in with and call it a day if Im down 10%, but then Im quite anal in that way and dont treat gambling like a get rich quick scheme.

yea i totally agree, when i lose round 1 first roll i will always lose the game if i win without losing any army i win the gamePedronicus wrote:My score is doing ok, but I still maintain the dice are absolutely shit on this site.
I find that on a certain game they are predefined. if you start to lose, you lose throughout all the game, likewise if you are winning, you just can't seem to lose.
No, I must disagree entirely. I'm quite sure it FEELS like what happened before relates to what happens next, but it has no basis in fact. It is, in fact, very much reality.Moop wrote:Although I understand the principle that everytime a dice is thrown or the roulette wheel spun the odds are equal to every number no matter what has happened before, in practise, it more often than not, doesn't quite pan out that way. You can use what has happened before as a rough guide, Im not saying its fool proof and of course theoretically what has happened before plays no deciding factor on the next number, but next time you see a roulette wheel give it a shot on thirds. I play 2 thirds at a time, at 2 to 1, same bet each time, its not get rich quick, and its very boring, but the risks are less. I usually walk away with around 15% more than I walked in with and call it a day if Im down 10%, but then Im quite anal in that way and dont treat gambling like a get rich quick scheme.
yea complaining about dice is not part of life its some kind of dream or utopy...benga wrote:GET A LIFE AND
STOP COMPLAINING
ABOUT THE DICE!!!