If the dice are so random?

[Neutrino]

No, the dice are random. You have as much chance of rolling a 1 as a 6. Because of this, if you tallied up what each of your rolls scored (1-6), you would find that you scored a roughly even number of each number.
If you rolled 600 dice, then you are probably going to end up with around 100 in each.
There is no guarantee of this, by the very nature of randomness you could roll 600 1's, but the chance of this happening are very remote.

The dice are random, but by it's very nature randomness has inbult patterns.

I don't know why no-one gets this; this is rather basic probability...

[tconrad]

"Most of CC will have roughly regular dice statistics." doesnt this prove that there is no such thing as random???

No, each individual dice roll is random, and thus over time people will end up rolling about the same percent of each number.

If your chances to role a 4 are 1/6 then after six rolls you would expect to have rolled about one 4. However sometimes you will roll two or three 4's in six rolls. But you will also have times when you roll zero 4's in 6 rolls.
In the end, the more times you repeat something, such as sampling a population or rolling a die, the more and more normal or regular the results will be. Thus since most people have rolled a lot of dice on CC, most people will have VERY normal or regular percentages, and everyones will be about the same.

Look at this website, roll the dice say 100 times, then do it again. You'll notice the the results are very similar both times even though its 500 different dice be rolled both times.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricula ... /dice.html

[nikola_milicki]

If the dice are random how is everybodys stats either the same or around the same??? i havent seen anyone with a massive spike on dice analyser statistics surely if this was this was the case we would see some people have a variance of 20% to 100% in different stats???????

Again if the dice where random everybodys stats would be be different nothing should even out

But over a long period of time with a large number of dice rolled, the stastics will even out.

If everybody had rolled only 10 or so dice then you would see huge percentage differences, but after a few hundred thousand, you can be pretty sure that most of the anomalies will be worked out.

If this is true then the dice are not random at all, are you telling me that every single person who plays cc will level out over time??? how can this be random come on somebody think about it everybody cant be level with so many users and so many dice thats just not random, is there something in the cc script that forces the dice for everyone to average the same percentages?? i would expect even one player to go on a great run with the dice and the dice analyser to be variable which at present it is not

Most people's will average out over time. You are right that there are some people who have badly skewed dice but, because of the sheer number of dice being thrown, these people are few and far between. Most of CC will have roughly regular dice statistics.

I would like to add this: I do believe that CC's dice are not entirely random. However, we are all using the same dice so we all experience the same thing - everyone experiences terrible streaks of good and bad luck

"Most of CC will have roughly regular dice statistics." doesnt this prove that there is no such thing as random???

I agree, random means: without somebody thinking or deciding in advance what is going to happen. So what is random about knowing in advance "Most of CC will have roughly regular dice statistics."

[jaseleo]

my point exactly

Fact one: With random number generators (RNGs), there are no guarantees. We can only predict what will happen in practice.
This is not because the word ''randomness'' is involved but because the finitely many random numbers we produce and their transformed variates cannot fit every imaginable distribution well enough.
Every generator has its regularities which, ocassionally, may become deficiencies. Hence, in a given application, even reliable generators may fail.
In cryptographical appplications, the unpredictability of the output is an additional, very important requirement. It is difficult to construct RNGs that are at the same time efficient and cryptographically secure. We refer to the eSTREAM project for further information on the construction and cryptanalysis of various stream ciphers.


This proves that random numbers are predicted and how everybody is the same

[TipTop]

If the dice are random then it is a mathematical certainty that in the long run the percentages will even out. I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding this Jaseleo, but you not understanding this does not change this fact.

If everyone here showed their Dice Analyzer stats after exactly 10,000 rolls all their percentages for each dice number will be close to 16.66%. That is because you have a 16.66% chance of rolling each number every single time you roll the dice.

That doesn't mean everyone will roll the same number of six's or one's that would not be random. The luckiest player may have rolled 200 more six's than the unluckiest player over that period but that is still only a 0.5% difference. Therefore luck in the long run becomes negligible.

What players often complain about with the dice ironicly is that they don't see their results average out in the short run. They complain about short streaks of bad luck which are going to happen for as long as they continue to play (BTW they will also see short streaks of good luck but they won't complain about that). This is because random has no memory. The dice cannot say to itself I have rolled a 1 three times in a row I should start rolling 6's for a bit. It just does not work that way.

What results come before have no influence whatsoever on what result comes next. However, to consistently favor a number over all others time and again for 10,000 rolls will either show you are the luckiest/unluckiest person to ever walk the face of the earth (theoreticly possible) or (more probable) that the dice are biased towards that number and aren't truly random. No one so far has ever demonstrated this in their Dice Analyzer stats.

I'm sorry if I'm using stats once again TTman, but we silly people use stats to prove something. But hey feel free to have a "serious discussion" while dismissing proof as an argument.

[Stopper]

If everyone here showed their Dice Analyzer stats after exactly 10,000 rolls all their percentages for each dice number will be close to 16.66%. That is because you have a 16.66% chance of rolling each number every single time you roll the dice.

Oh, really? Well, look at my results. How do you explain this, then? I hardly ever win a game.

[TipTop]

[kwanton]

Another suitable physical phenomenon is atmospheric noise, which is quite easy to pick up with a normal radio. This is the approach used by RANDOM.ORG. You could also use background noise from an office or laboratory, but you'll have to watch out for patterns. The fan from your computer might contribute to the background noise, and since the fan is a rotating device, chances are the noise it produces won't be as random as atmospheric noise.

Straight from random.org. I love how it only gives possibilities and doesn't specifically say what it uses to gather the atmospheric noise. Random.org says it could use noise from an office or laboratory. It says it uses atmospheric noise. This could be one of many different things. Why is random.org so vague about this?

[mathgeni]

obviously some of you failed to read my post of page 3 of this thread... as i explained there the probability of rolling any single number is 1/6- this holds true for every single number and for every single roll

and with an increasing number of die being rolled the probability of rolling a number that will win actually decreases because with 3 die the probability of any outcome is 1/216... that is far less than 1/6.... so a single defending die actually has a much greater probability of winning than 3 attacking die

why wasn't this thread dead a day after it started?- probability and statistics is not a hard concept to master... hell i took it my first semester of college (and it is a 300 level class) and had no problem except forgetting to take a calculator to the final exam

if you still do not understand what i have written i suggest you do a google search and do some of your own reading- not more of your stupid hypothecizing

[Stopper]

so the probability of rolling one die and getting a 6 is 1/6
the probability of getting a 6 when rolling 3 die is actually 1/216

It's been many years since I studied probability, but do you mean that the probability of rolling three 6's when rolling three dice is 1/216? That's quite a different proposition from what you've written there.

so a single defending die actually has a much greater probability of winning than 3 attacking die

Look, mate, I really think you've got this whole game arse-about-face.

Either that, or you need to seriously re-word whatever it is you're trying to say here!

[RobinJ]

This thread has become stupid. It really isn't that hard to understand. I'll take the most basic example possible: take a coin and toss it 100 times. It will be roughly 50/50 heads. Do it several times - it will be roughly 50/50 heads every time in all likelihood. This is randomness - it averages out

[nikola_milicki]

so a single defending die actually has a much greater probability of winning than 3 attacking die

Hm, thats just stupid!!! Try it in real life. Lets say dice are players (and the game board is boxing ring in real life), are you saying you alone actually have a much greater probability of defending yourself from 3 of us getting your ass kicked.

[nikola_milicki]

This thread has become stupid. It really isn't that hard to understand. I'll take the most basic example possible: take a coin and toss it 100 times. It will be roughly 50/50 heads. Do it several times - it will be roughly 50/50 heads every time in all likelihood. This is randomness - it averages out

Dont think so! I dear you to toss a coin 100 times!!!!

[jaseleo]

Amongst all of the threads and and discussions the point trying to be made is that this is not random.

ie

take 6 players and roll 10,000 dice each and you would find 1 player who rolled a 6 5,000 times and one may roll a 1 8,000 times this IS random not like the stats on this site where everybody is the same there is nothing random about that and the decision is made in advance of play.

There has got to be players who get cracking stats then drop then raise then drop, not this site everyone stays the same therefore it is mathmatically impossible to be random

[Bean_]

Instead of dice let's use coin tosses. If 1000 people toss the coin 1000 times each, a very high percentage (probably over 95%) will have between 450 and 550 heads. Maybe a couple outliers will have 700 heads.

If you take these outliers and have them toss the coin another 9,000 times, again, there is a very high probability that they will have between, say, 4300 and 4700 heads in those 9000 tosses (would expect 4500).

If you put the two together, the person who was at 70% heads after 1000 tosses would very likely be between 50% and 54% heads after 10,000 tosses. That is what people mean by saying that the odds are likely to even out over the long run. It doesn't mean things are predetermined, only that everyone's rolls are likely, *over the long run*, to approach an even distribution of outcomes.

Is it possible he will end up with 7000 heads after 10,000? Sure, but it's very, very unlikely. But if you have the 1000 people tossing 10,000 coins each, there may well be someone with 5500 heads and someone else with 4500.

[Freeman74]

Please someone smarter than me do a statistical analysis of rolling 10,000 and coming up with a 1 8,000 times. The odds of that have to be incredibly miniscule. I think what is lacking in this thread is a proper understanding of probabilities and many are trying to explain it but its not taking.

If the argument random.org is not perfectly random, they may have a point of truth, in that nothing man made is going to be perfectly random. However for the purpose of rolling dice for a risk game, I think random.org far exceeds the degree of psudo-randomness that is needed to call it totally random in casual terms.

[Stopper]

I think what is lacking in this thread is a proper understanding of probabilities and many are trying to explain it but its not taking.

If the argument random.org is not perfectly random, they may have a point of truth, in that nothing man made is going to be perfectly random. However for the purpose of rolling dice for a risk game, I think random.org far exceeds the degree of psudo-randomness that is needed to call it totally random in casual terms.

Oh hello there, unlikely-to-be-listened-to-voice-of-reason.

[kwanton]

Another suitable physical phenomenon is atmospheric noise, which is quite easy to pick up with a normal radio. This is the approach used by RANDOM.ORG. You could also use background noise from an office or laboratory, but you'll have to watch out for patterns. The fan from your computer might contribute to the background noise, and since the fan is a rotating device, chances are the noise it produces won't be as random as atmospheric noise.

Straight from random.org. I love how it only gives possibilities and doesn't specifically say what it uses to gather the atmospheric noise. Random.org says it could use noise from an office or laboratory. It says it uses atmospheric noise. This could be one of many different things. Why is random.org so vague about this?

[Stopper]

See?

[kwanton]

I think what is lacking in this thread is a proper understanding of probabilities and many are trying to explain it but its not taking.

If the argument random.org is not perfectly random, they may have a point of truth, in that nothing man made is going to be perfectly random. However for the purpose of rolling dice for a risk game, I think random.org far exceeds the degree of psudo-randomness that is needed to call it totally random in casual terms.

Oh hello there, unlikely-to-be-listened-to-voice-of-reason.

Random.org says that it is truly random. So if your "voice of reason" buddy is right then the site is lying to us. "Nothing man-made can be completely random. I agree with this.

Does random.org lie to us about being truly ranom?

Yes.

Could it be lying about the numbers it provides?

Yes.

Could it just be using a computer program which is not random at all and only spits out numbers so they'll fit the expected stats?

Yes.

[iteachjava]

Amongst all of the threads and and discussions the point trying to be made is that this is not random.

ie

take 6 players and roll 10,000 dice each and you would find 1 player who rolled a 6 5,000 times and one may roll a 1 8,000 times this IS random not like the stats on this site where everybody is the same there is nothing random about that and the decision is made in advance of play.

There has got to be players who get cracking stats then drop then raise then drop, not this site everyone stays the same therefore it is mathmatically impossible to be random

Ok, I think the idea that each roll has a 1 in 6 chance of being a six has been beaten to death. What this post cries out for is a lesson in normal distribution (unfortunately I can't teach it, but I'll try). Rather than talking about a single roll, we're looking at a large series of rolls. That event (the series of rolls) has a probability distribution that looks like a bell curve. It is not equally likely that someone roll 5000 sixes out of 10000 rolls and another roll 2000 sixes. You may find someone who rolled 5000 sixes but if you do, have him go play the lottery immediately.

[Stopper]

Random.org says that it is truly random. So if your "voice of reason" buddy is right then the site is lying to us. "Nothing man-made can be completely random. I agree with this.

Does random.org lie to us about being truly ranom?


Yes.

Could it be lying about the numbers it provides?

Yes.

Could it just be using a computer program which is not random at all and only spits out numbers so they'll fit the expected stats?

Yes.

IF you can provide the slightest piece of evidence, however slight, that the dice here at CC are appreciably non-random, then I'll listen. But not before, mind!

What makes you think I want to hear your fevered speculation about the possibility of Random.org being fraudulent, when you have absolutely nothing, not a whit, to back it up?

[Bean_]

Please someone smarter than me do a statistical analysis of rolling 10,000 and coming up with a 1 8,000 times. The odds of that have to be incredibly miniscule. I think what is lacking in this thread is a proper understanding of probabilities and many are trying to explain it but its not taking.

If the argument random.org is not perfectly random, they may have a point of truth, in that nothing man made is going to be perfectly random. However for the purpose of rolling dice for a risk game, I think random.org far exceeds the degree of psudo-randomness that is needed to call it totally random in casual terms.

The number is so small that it blows up my Excel.

The chance of rolling exactly 25 1s in 50 is about (if I'm doing my math right) 0.00000466091%

exactly 20 is about 0.00543%

exactly 15 is about 0.81046%

exactly 10 is about 11.559%

The chance of rolling exactly 800 1s out of 1000 is about 1.24 x 10^ -267. In other words, you can roll dice for the lifetime of the universe in 1000-dice chunks and never have 800 of them turn out to be 1s.

Also, BTW, random.org is supposed to be a true random number generator, not a pseudo-RNG. Of course, we don't know who's behind the curtain, so to speak.

[Freeman74]

It looks like this is going to play out like a 911 conspiracy.

I guess, I just wonder why it matters so much. Even if its not perfectly random (and I have already stated that its random enough. So don't jump me for that.) Everyone is receiving the dice from the same source with the same chance of getting whatever comes down the shoot. Sometimes it runs in your favor some times it does not. Just like regular dice.

I think its just human nature to count the hits and not the misses. Hits being incredibly good or bad "luck" and misses being somewhere in the middle.

Could George Bush have ordered planes to be crashed into the WTC?

Yes

Could it have been a missile that hit the pentagon?

Yes

But, neither is very likely. And its not likely that random.org is altering the statistics in the dice analyzer.

[jaseleo]

Statistics of Dice Throw

The probababilities of different numbers obtained by the throw of two dice offer a good introduction to the ideas of probability. For the throw of a single die, all outcomes are equally probable. But in the throw of two dice, the different possibilities for the total of the two dice are not equally probable because there are more ways to get some numbers than others. There are six ways to get a total of 7, but only one way to get 2, so the "odds" of getting a 7 are six times those for getting "snake eyes". This simple example raises the idea of distinguishable states. For example, throwing a 3 is twice as likely as throwing a 2 because there are two distinguishable ways to get a 3.


Found this which states that the more dice you have the probability of getting higher numbers increases due to to the combinations available so how do cc stats level out on all dice????