wtf is wrong with the dice?

[SirSebstar]

There is a psychological theory that describes that when never someone looses a game, they attribute it to something other then themselves, e.g. the dice.
If they win, they think they are that good…


next to that i had writen a reply, but it seems pointless to me. the dice are what they are. You can be unlucky. But if you are unlucky all the time, you should rethink what you are doing and see if you can change it around.

[musicalmaven]

and as freud said - it's just a good cigar.
while ascribing your lose to luck and taking more credit than you deserve when you win may be human nature, but when you have data showing your luck with the dice is below the average and has been for years, you have to understand that there may be something to the claim that the dice are off, somehow.
i have no idea to what you are referring when you say i should rethink what i am doing. all i am doing is playing risk, and playing risk means you have to throw the dice to determine a winner of an attack.
if you have some method of reversing lousy dice - please inform me how and i will try it.
i have heard from others saying if the dice are bad stop and comeback later. (a woodruff post, either in this thread or another, stated that the intense dice might fall into a streak due to how the system works and after an hour or so the dice system re-sets and that streaky element is eliminated {i know woodruff - i am paraphrasing and i do not fully understand the concept, so the wording is off} i've tried it - and more often than not - it doesn't work - and i've tried walking away for an hour or so and for longer time periods.
i've also been to to use the automatic button (as well as being told not to use it). generally speaking i've done better using it than not using it, but i've gotten horrid results and great results.
so, as i said before - if you have a methodology please tell me what to do.

[SirSebstar]

how can you say you have bad luck? your sample is small but it clearly states you are within probability.. i dont see your problem.
If you only complain because you loose 4-2 more then you remember winning it, you should really reconsider either taking a probability call again or remember that you will often just not win it. and 4-2 although it is the way to accack(over 2-2 or someting) is not always going to win you the game.
for that matter, 10-1 will also sometimes be lost..
plan around it

[musicalmaven]

maybe you didn't read everything, let me re-state.
i replied to metsfan's comment that my numbers from the dice analyzer, while not stirring, were currently reasonable. when i started my posts on this thread, i was in the negative in 5 of the 6 categories, and had been for 3 months.
i do not agree with your statement that my numbers are small. if you think 130,000 throws are small, i'd hate to think what numbers you think are sufficient. but if you want to throw out a number please do so - remember, i have records for 4 years - if that is not sufficient, well then, there is no need to respond - you will never be satisfied.
believe me, i am not complaining that i lost 4 while only beating 2. we all know that is possible.
what i am saying is that for the 4 years that i have kept records, my accumulative total has never been above average. in fact, while on individual pages i have occasionally been above average, my times below average, on an individual page, far outstrips the times i have been over.
and i am not complaining that i have lost 9 times in order to beat a single defender. as i did yesterday, my complaint is that over a long period of time i have been the recipient of lousy dice and that leads me to suspect a problem, as i said previously, on the individual level, not on the over all level.
i also noticed that you failed to give me anything new to try to break this on-going problem.
if you have nothing to offer on this matter, fine, but then you have to admit that over 4 years a player should have occasions of having the dice be sufficiently in his favor that the accumulative totals are above average, not always in the negative.
if you disagree with this, i am certain you will respond accordingly.

[Metsfanmax]

if you have nothing to offer on this matter, fine, but then you have to admit that over 4 years a player should have occasions of having the dice be sufficiently in his favor that the accumulative totals are above average, not always in the negative.
if you disagree with this, i am certain you will respond accordingly.

Actually, this point is not correct. If you're negative after your first, say, 10,000 rolls, I wouldn't expect you to be positive later on. I would expect that the most likely situation is that you're negative by the same amount. Going cumulatively positive would require a string of above average dice (to counter the effect of the below average dice you previously had), which is statistically unlikely. The critical error you're making is to assume that the dice have to average out; that is, if you're negative now, you would expect that your cumulative total should be neutral, so you expect positive results to balance this out. But the dice don't care what your past results are; they're going to keep giving fair and random results. The most likely outcome is that you'll stay where you are in terms of absolute number of dice below average, and therefore your percentage below average will diminish slowly as time goes on.

[SirSebstar]

.......
if you disagree with this, i am certain you will respond accordingly.

If you kept records on 4 years and your dice sucked in each and every one of those, than i guess it sucks to be you or you really pissed off Lack....
But seriously, there are different ways of playing. You could also play in a style that assume you are going to loose more dice, but your strategy accounts for it.(should anyways)
e.g. I am the king of 4 cards no set on the one moment it really matters. Quite subjective, but it means I adjust my playstyle. And surprise, sometimes I just win..

[musicalmaven]

that's why it sucks to be me (or what the hell did i ever do to lack?).
i usually do play as if i am going to get screwed - or at least i expect it when i start.
in the example i gave to woodruff - i have 22. my opponent 14 and 4 or 5 cards. i should be able to knock him out (so the odds say) and cash-in, at least once, and go after the next guy.
i plan for a 50-50 split (below average, of course) and i still have elbow room.
i will almost always attack given this scenario - the next guys also has 4 or 5 cards and if i don't try to get the player with 14 - he will.
what would you do?
as for not being able to cash - in on 4, well once again - what the hell did i ever do to lack?
since i started keeping track of that too, going on 3 is below average (33%), but if i cannot go on 4 - i usually lose, someone else cashes - in on 3 or 4 and - end of game.
i do not know how you can play this game and give more room for lousy dice than i do, and still win (the object of the game, of course).
i have seen my opponents do more things to me, and to the rest of the players, if there are others playing, than i have ever done to my opponents.
there was a game in jan., 2010 that had me close to quitting. i was not able to cash - in on 4 while my opponent had 5 cards. i had him down to 1 territory with 3 men on it. i had at least 22 men on at least 12 territories. he cashed - in for 15 + the usual 3 and won the game.
believe me when i say i have never done that, ever.
so, based on this, can you tell me what the hell i ever did to lack, and how long do i have to lick his boots to earn a reprieve?

[SirSebstar]

I suggest sacrificing a virgin goat, buying lack gold wheels for his golden cadelac and stop posting in the dice bitching threads. I have heard he especially dislikes bad news or bad press.....
Never seen anybody complain though.. I mean, never seen anybody after they complained i mean.. oh well

[mr_chopper]

I am beginning to think the dice are crooked in some way. Just seems I am losing repeated assaults with clear advantages (9-3, 8-2 etc) over and over. (You can accept that a 6-3 advantage isn't much of an adavantage because the first roll is really the winning-losing roll of the batte.) I am not sure why the dice are crooked against me - maybe I am just noticing the bad dice going my way and blissfully carry on when I get good rolls. But, it is almost predictable now that when I play a speed game against a higher ranked player I am going to experience a disproportionate number of unequal and unlikely rolls. A recent game saw me lose successive battles with 9-3, 9-3 and 6-2 advantages without a loss to the enemy - effectively giving the game away. Again, this pattern followed earlier patterns of unlikely battle losses against higher ranked opponents. So, my question is: are the 'random' rolls related to differences in player rankings?

[Fruitcake]

I am beginning to think the dice are crooked in some way. Just seems I am losing repeated assaults with clear advantages (9-3, 8-2 etc) over and over. (You can accept that a 6-3 advantage isn't much of an adavantage because the first roll is really the winning-losing roll of the batte.) I am not sure why the dice are crooked against me - maybe I am just noticing the bad dice going my way and blissfully carry on when I get good rolls. But, it is almost predictable now that when I play a speed game against a higher ranked player I am going to experience a disproportionate number of unequal and unlikely rolls. A recent game saw me lose successive battles with 9-3, 9-3 and 6-2 advantages without a loss to the enemy - effectively giving the game away. Again, this pattern followed earlier patterns of unlikely battle losses against higher ranked opponents. So, my question is: are the 'random' rolls related to differences in player rankings?

It all depends on which high ranked player you were up against. I have a list of those who have availed themselves of the 'mythical' (so called) dice patch. We would need to see who it is you are talking about before providing evidence.

[Kaiser Tigerstar]

I've noticed the same thing as well. I have like one victory battle for every 6 losing battles.

[SirSebstar]

I am beginning to think the dice are crooked in some way. Just seems I am losing repeated assaults with clear advantages (9-3, 8-2 etc) over and over. (You can accept that a 6-3 advantage isn't much of an adavantage because the first roll is really the winning-losing roll of the batte.) I am not sure why the dice are crooked against me - maybe I am just noticing the bad dice going my way and blissfully carry on when I get good rolls. But, it is almost predictable now that when I play a speed game against a higher ranked player I am going to experience a disproportionate number of unequal and unlikely rolls. A recent game saw me lose successive battles with 9-3, 9-3 and 6-2 advantages without a loss to the enemy - effectively giving the game away. Again, this pattern followed earlier patterns of unlikely battle losses against higher ranked opponents. So, my question is: are the 'random' rolls related to differences in player rankings?

yes,
highrankers who might just have won the game will loose their dice because of your awesomeness. However whenever you face a highranker who would just smithe you, well they will get all the dice in the world. they also all happen to be lacks friend.. i wonder if they are all members of the illuminati at the mc gills university too

[sam02]

Do i have something like a world record with 10 lost straight against 1s then 12 lost straight against a stack?...

[SirSebstar]

no i have lost and reported 36 consequative diceloss in one game.. and a loss of 18-1 vs 1 on auto...

[sam02]

no i have lost and reported 36 consequative diceloss in one game.. and a loss of 18-1 vs 1 on auto...

Congrats!! i have to improve

[jefjef]

I just lost 30 consecutive round 1 rolls rolling 3 attacker dice. A bunch of defender 5's and 6's. Clan war game too. Random? No. I can count on my war games being no dice crap. They mostly always are.

CC should admit what they are doing or better yet stop doing it.

[natty dread]

I just lost 30 consecutive round 1 rolls rolling 3 attacker dice. A bunch of defender 5's and 6's. Clan war game too. Random? No. I can count on my war games being no dice crap. They mostly always are.

CC should admit what they are doing or better yet stop doing it.

"I'm losing so the dice are not random. "

What a compelling argument! Bravo!

[Woodruff]

I auto-assault EVERYTHING. Yes, everything. If it's a 3-vs-1, I auto-assault. Why? Because I'm lazy. Yes, that is the honest answer...and I auto-assault the 3-vs-1 simply because it's habit to hit that button and it makes no difference at all.

And I have NEVER lost the enormous numbers that I'm seeing reported in this thread, in my three years here on this site. I think my largest loss was probably a 15-vs-1 or so, though that's just a guess off the top of my head.

I can't imagine that over the course of three years, I've just been that lucky. More likely, I simply don't dwell on those big losses the way the rest of you losers do, so I don't remember them. They don't hit me like they do you guys because you LET THEM HURT YOU. Get over it. Have fun instead!

I had one dude that claimed to me that if I auto-assaulted everything, he'd win. I kicked his ass. <laughing>

[RADAGA]

Yep, now I know the dice are broken, and that if I try to go against a higher rank, I shoudl be ready for him to trample 2+4 of my defendind armies with 6 armies of his own, while I lose 14 armies to kill 1+1+1+1+1 (losing 1 on each 3x1, and 4 in one of them) - just happened, btw, and I am winning the game - the thing is I cannot finish him, because he breaks my bonuses, and I have to stack against his unbelievable wins, to avoid being trampled by his 5 armies / round.

Not to mention that on his previous nine cards, he cashed 3 mixed sets.

[Condestável]

Yep, now I know the dice are broken, and that if I try to go against a higher rank, I shoudl be ready for him to trample 2+4 of my defendind armies with 6 armies of his own, while I lose 14 armies to kill 1+1+1+1+1 (losing 1 on each 3x1, and 4 in one of them) - just happened, btw, and I am winning the game - the thing is I cannot finish him, because he breaks my bonuses, and I have to stack against his unbelievable wins, to avoid being trampled by his 5 armies / round.

Not to mention that on his previous nine cards, he cashed 3 mixed sets.

I'm playing a game at this moment and 3 + 2 armies were enought to stop 14. It's unbelievable.

Seriously, this "random.org" is crap as crap it can get in randomness.

That or something else.

I was thinking in buying a premium account... Seriously not anymore.

[Woodruff]

Yep, now I know the dice are broken, and that if I try to go against a higher rank, I shoudl be ready for him to trample 2+4 of my defendind armies with 6 armies of his own, while I lose 14 armies to kill 1+1+1+1+1 (losing 1 on each 3x1, and 4 in one of them) - just happened, btw, and I am winning the game - the thing is I cannot finish him, because he breaks my bonuses, and I have to stack against his unbelievable wins, to avoid being trampled by his 5 armies / round.

Not to mention that on his previous nine cards, he cashed 3 mixed sets.

I'm playing a game at this moment and 3 + 2 armies were enought to stop 14. It's unbelievable.

Seriously, this "random.org" is crap as crap it can get in randomness.

That or something else.

I was thinking in buying a premium account... Seriously not anymore.

Educate yourselves on the meaning of "randomness", please. It does not mean "averages out"!

[Condestável]

Tell me Woodruff, why since I joined this site I have to cope with your insulting replies since my very first post?

Why do I have to cope with your exorbitantly offensive posts? you are bit annoying did you notice? do I owe any debt, wage or something?

Seriously, who do you think you are to judge what others know or not about mathematics, ethics... and tell me, what more subjects do you think you master better than people you don't know from anywhere?

[Metsfanmax]

Tell me Woodruff, why since I joined this site I have to cope with your insulting replies since my very first post?

Why do I have to cope with your exorbitantly offensive posts? you are bit annoying did you notice? do I owe any debt, wage or something?

Seriously, who do you think you are to judge what others know or not about mathematics, ethics... and tell me, what more subjects do you think you master better than people you don't know from anywhere?

You really don't have to deal with him. Just ignore his posts if you don't like what he says - there's a "foe" function that handles this for you.

[Woodruff]

Tell me Woodruff, why since I joined this site I have to cope with your insulting replies since my very first post?
Why do I have to cope with your exorbitantly offensive posts? you are bit annoying did you notice? do I owe any debt, wage or something?
Seriously, who do you think you are to judge what others know or not about mathematics, ethics... and tell me, what more subjects do you think you master better than people you don't know from anywhere?

If you'd educate yourself regarding the subject at hand, you wouldn't have to feel insulted by me about it any longer. So that's a thought.

[Condestável]

Tell me Woodruff, why since I joined this site I have to cope with your insulting replies since my very first post?
Why do I have to cope with your exorbitantly offensive posts? you are bit annoying did you notice? do I owe any debt, wage or something?
Seriously, who do you think you are to judge what others know or not about mathematics, ethics... and tell me, what more subjects do you think you master better than people you don't know from anywhere?

If you'd educate yourself regarding the subject at hand, you wouldn't have to feel insulted by me about it any longer. So that's a thought.

Even if you had any sort of premises to assess unknown people...

who are you to insolently tell others if they are educated or not?