dice.vs.skill

[RADAGA]

2 dice

3 3 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 13:32:31 UTC
4 5
4 5
2 4
2 4
2 5
3 5
1 5
6 3
6 6
2 3
5 1 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 13:33:57 UTC

6 fives.... 25% of what should be 16%

3 1
6 6
2 5
6 6
1 1
6 4
1 1
3 6
4 5
2 3
2 5
4 3

6,6 / 6,6 / 1,1 / 1,1 twice the expected doubles

4 1
5 5
5 4
3 3
4 1
2 6
3 5
5 5
5 5
6 2
3 5
2 3

5,5 3,3 5,5 5,5 four times, twice the expected.

2,3
5,4
4,4
1,1
5,4
1,1
3,1
6,3
5,2
1,6
6,4
6,2

4,4 1,1 1,1 50% more than expected.

3,5
5,5
6,6
2,3
5,2
4,5
6,5
5,3
6,2
6,3
4,3
2,6

the first time we got the expected probability
but, then again, 25% sixes.

So, in five times twelve rolls, I got, every single time, odds ABOVE the ones expected.

Anyway... I´d do more, but I will wait someone to give me large amounts of money.

[KLOBBER]

PS -- If you are confident in your ability to predict the dice, then you could really catch my attention by challenging the CC members and staff to bet on your ability to predict the dice beforehand.

If you are right, then you stand to win a lot of money here.

However, I'm not sure how workable this bet would be, as many of the members and staff here seem to harbor dishonest proclivities, and would jump at the chance to cheat you in this manner. It may be difficult to hold them to honestly presenting the actual rolls that they get from random.org.

You may have to couch your bet within a game, so that all persons involved in the bet can observe the patterns manifesting together; that may reduce the tendency towards dishonesty I mentioned above. Of course, we don't know what influence CC staff have over the manifestations of dice patterns in games, so they would have to be excluded. We also don't know if they have multi-accounts, though, and so this will be VERY difficult for you to prove. If you win it, though, then you'll be on top of the world!

If you do decide to go through with this bet, I would LOVE to watch! I'll be very happy for you if you win. How confident are you in your theories?

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

[RADAGA]

I am not trying to prove the dice are predictable. I am trying to prove dice behaves on ways that favor doubles, and streaks of same numbers. That is a disaster when thinking about risk games.

if you get a 5 on a defense, and there is a chance, larger than real dice chance that this five will repeat several times in a row, you are basically saying that you will continue to loose an attack. Same (but opposite) if the defense shows as a 2.

That means you should not base your atatcks and defenses on 6 sided dice rolls, but instead on the particular probabilistical distribuitions of random.org, that does not reflect actual dice.

[KLOBBER]

6 fives.... 25% of what should be 16%


6,6 / 6,6 / 1,1 / 1,1 twice the expected doubles


5,5 3,3 5,5 5,5 four times, twice the expected.


4,4 1,1 1,1 50% more than expected.

the first time we got the expected probability
but, then again, 25% sixes.

So, in five times twelve rolls, I got, every single time, odds ABOVE the ones expected.

All of the above, "25% of what should be 16%," "twice the expected," "50% more than expected," "odds ABOVE the ones expected," prove that the dice are unpredictable, as you repeatedly receive that which you DO NOT expect. Only one example above showed you getting what you expected from the dice. Your likelihood of predicting the dice beforehand is very low, given your above posts.

Are you trying to show here that the dice are predictable, or are you trying to show that they are unpredictable? You have shown the latter.

CONCLUSION: The dice are unpredictable by design.

[KLOBBER]

I am not trying to prove the dice are predictable. I am trying to prove dice behaves on ways that favor doubles, and streaks of same numbers. That is a disaster when thinking about risk games.

But if they actually favored doubles, then they would be, to some degree, predictable. However, you have not proven that they favor doubles.

if you get a 5 on a defense, and there is a chance, larger than real dice chance that this five will repeat several times in a row, you are basically saying that you will continue to loose an attack. Same (but opposite) if the defense shows as a 2.

If this were proven, which it is not, then you could use the information to win a higher percentage of games. Why are you not doing so?

That means you should not base your atatcks and defenses on 6 sided dice rolls, but instead on the particular probabilistical distribuitions of random.org, that does not reflect actual dice.

It would mean that if you had proven the above theories, but you have not.

Prove this to me by playing a series of games with me, and I will accept your theory. Until that time, you are only referencing a tiny handful of rolls here, which are not representative of all dice patterns produced by random.org.

Actually, if you are right about this, I am all for it, and I will be very happy if you can prove it. However, I am quite confident that you are wrong.

[RADAGA]

Not quite. We are talking about unpredictable results on a fixed rang of possible results.

If the number of tries is significantly greater than the range itself, you can expect results to repeat over time, following a very definite law of probability.

If the distribution fails to show the law of probability that should apply to it, and more, if it fails on a consistent matter, always showing tendency to give results on a same direction (in case, doubles), then it means that we are using the wrong probability rules for this set of results.

a new probability rule would have to be designed, in order to calculate ODDS consistently.

[KLOBBER]

...we are using the wrong probability rules for this set of results....

I accept the fact that you (you, not "we") are using the wrong probability rules. In fact, your error in this regard was one of my main points above.

Besides lowering your own rank, what bearing could your personal tendency to use the wrong probability rules possibly have on CC games?

[RADAGA]

Just that we should be warned that the numbers shown as dice are not, actually, equal of what you wold obtain from of actual dice rolls. That it uses an entirely new rule to do so, and that it is not ruled by the specific probability that rule six sided dice.

And why the aggressive tone? Did I forced anyone to read this thread, so people are upset for absolutely having to do so? Are you being paid to read it, and therefore are upset for having to, or you´re just being unpleasant, so I will stop questioning your beliefs?

Perhaps you are being paid by random.org to defend their randomness (not unpredictability, mind you) of results.

To be unpredictable equals not to be random. You can be unpredictable by following a pattern so complex that no one can calculate fast enough to say what the result will be.

you can be unpredictable if you use an algorithm complex enough not to be guessed by the sole observation of some outputs

and other many ways.

[KLOBBER]

Just that we should be warned that the numbers shown as dice are not, actually, equal of what you wold obtain from of actual dice rolls.

But I knew all of that even before you posted; you are not presenting any new info here. If they were to be equal, that would mean that they would be predictable, which they are not. In fact, they are 100% unpredictable by design.

That it uses an entirely new rule to do so, and that it is not ruled by the specific probability that rule six sided dice.

Already knew it.

And why the aggressive tone?

You are projecting your own aggressive tendencies onto the tones of other posters, which is another error on your part.

Did I forced anyone to read this thread, so people are upset for absolutely having to do so? Are you being paid to read it, and therefore are upset for having to, or you´re just being unpleasant, so I will stop questioning your beliefs?

No, no, and no. I have not posted any beliefs here; you have. I have posted scientific facts exclusively.

Perhaps you are being paid by random.org to defend their randomness (not unpredictability, mind you) of results.

I have asserted repeatedly that the dice patterns from random.org are 100% NON-RANDOM, so if they were paying me to defend their supposed "randomness," I would expect to be fired very soon.

To be unpredictable equals not to be random. You can be unpredictable by following a pattern so complex that no one can calculate fast enough to say what the result will be.

you can be unpredictable if you use an algorithm complex enough not to be guessed by the sole observation of some outputs

and other many ways.

Thank you for finally understanding the facts of the dice patterns! Actually, your intelligence has exceeded that of most of the people who post here in this regard.

FACTUAL CONCLUSION:

The CC dice are 100% unpredictable BY DESIGN, and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING "random" about the patterns they manifest. Bravo!

[RADAGA]

Yep, and they are not "dice"

[lancehoch]

RADAGA, Klobber is a troll, just stop replying to him. (He will not be able to see my post since I am on his ignore list.) What you need to do is get at least 6,000 consecutive dice from Random.org (if you really want to do this right, you might need more like 600,000 or 6,000,000 and you should do this for each of 1 die, 2 dice, and 3 dice). You stated above that you need a larger sample size than the possibility of results, which is correct. For rolling two dice there are 36 outcomes, you only rolled 24 dice before, that is a) not above the number of outcomes, and b) even assuming you rolled 40 or 60 dice, that is not a large enough number to balance out the outliers. Let's assume you have a quarter and are tossing the quarter. There are two outcomes (heads and tails). What you are doing here is the equivalent of flipping the quarter four times, getting heads 3 times and saying this is significant. Basically what I am saying is "Shit Happens" and you need to get larger samples to balance it out. I bet if you do this more than 1,000 times you will get all kinds of strange things like: 5 or 6 of the same number in a row, two numbers alternating for 8 or so consecutive rolls, a specific number not showing up for 20 rolls.Sorry, but in the end, it will all balance out.

[KLOBBER]

Yep, and they are not "dice"

Technically speaking, you are correct; they are not dice.

They are non-random patterns of numbers that are unpredictable by design, and they are based on unpredictable, non-random patterns of sound vibrations.

[KLOBBER]

(He will not be able to see my post since I am on his ignore list.)

You are incorrect.

When people put you on their ignore lists, it means that they have an enhanced ability to choose whether to read or ignore your posts. The default is that your posts are not visible, but there is a standardized blurb displaying your screen name and a link that offers the option to display the post.

I always have the choice to leave your posts invisible, or to read them at my whim: You will never be able to predict whether I choose to read them or not.

I highly recommend the use of this feature to other CC members who you flame without cause, as you have flamed me without cause. I derive a certain amount of satisfaction from having this power over you.

[RADAGA]

I will stay out of this, but will say that, at least with me, in this particular thread, I´ve seen no trolling, au contraire, it was a fruitful, albeit non-conclusive, discussion.

[KLOBBER]

I will stay out of this, but will say that, at least with me, in this particular thread, I´ve seen no trolling, au contraire, it was a fruitful, albeit non-conclusive, discussion.

Thank you.

: )

[RADAGA]

Will I EVER learn?

Game 2401859, I got nine, opponent got seven, started the attack

Ended with 2, opponent with 6. Cute.

Rule number one in CC: you lost both armies when attacking, STOP, you will loose 2 again and again and again.

[KLOBBER]

Rule number one in CC: you lost both armies when attacking, STOP, you will loose 2 again and again and again.

If that's true, then you should use it to become the overall champion of the site.

I'll be waiting to see how it works out for you. I hope it works for you, but I doubt it.

[RADAGA]

This have nothing to do with CC, this have to do with my TERRIBLE luck

just burst 6x3 conquered the first two.... then lost 3 times in a row 3x1, one 2x1 and, what the heck, lost the 1x1 as well.

[KLOBBER]

Luck doesn't exist in reality. It is only a mythological concept.

[lackattack]

Your math is all wrong, Radaga.

First time: four TWO in sequence

Odds of three numbers (any) in sequence = 1/6*1/6*1/6 + 1/6*1/6*1/6 + 1/6*1/6*1/6
in three dice: 1/72 ...

The odds of 3 rolls being triple 1's: 1/6*1/6*1/6 = 1/216
The odds of 3 rolls being triple 2's: 1/6*1/6*1/6 = 1/216
The odds of 3 rolls being triple 3's: 1/6*1/6*1/6 = 1/216
The odds of 3 rolls being triple 4's: 1/6*1/6*1/6 = 1/216
The odds of 3 rolls being triple 5's: 1/6*1/6*1/6 = 1/216
The odds of 3 rolls being triple 6's: 1/6*1/6*1/6 = 1/216
The odds of 3 rolls being a triplet: 1/6*1/6*1/6 + 1/6*1/6*1/6 + 1/6*1/6*1/6 + 1/6*1/6*1/6 + 1/6*1/6*1/6 + 1/6*1/6*1/6
= 1/36

16 have 5 blocks of 3 dice, so roughly one on each fourteen rolls should have a triplet..

Faulty logic. The triplets don't have to be in these 5 positions:
[xxx][xxx][xxx][xxx][xxx]x

They can also be in this position:
x[xxx]xxxxxxxxxxxx
Or this one:
xx[xxx]xxxxxxxxxxx

I count 14 possible positions for a triplet.

The dice are perfectly random, it's just that the chances of getting streaks are naturally much higher than people expect.

[RADAGA]

Even in case of rolling 2 dice?

12 times rolling 2 dice should always wield 3 or more doubles? I should go to vegas and stick myself to dice. I´d be rich! RICH! mhauhauhauhuHaWaWaWaWhaWaWaUaH

[MOBAJOBG]

Yes, of course the dice are perfectly random when you've played more than 1000 games continuously for a period of over 1 year without any breaks and my claim is 100% experience in actuality.

Any doubts that you may have should dissipate immediately once you've reached a critical mass and grind it out in the long haul.

[PLAYER57832]

Is it just me or are the dice making this game less and less about skill im starting to lose 10vs1 then im completely out and its happenning every other game is the game becoming more about whoever has better dice?

Welcome to the TRUE BRILLIANCE of Risk!

When you lose -- you get to blame the dice!

When you win, it is "of course" SOLELY due to skill!

[KLOBBER]

The dice are perfectly random, it's just that the chances of getting streaks are naturally much higher than people expect.

That is incorrect. In reality, there is absolutely nothing at all about the dice that is even remotely random.

Each and every step of the system that produces the dice patterns is completely and wholly governed by design, from alpha to omega; there is absolutely nothing at all that is random in any of the steps along the way, nor is there anything at all that is random about the overall process.

It is 100% by design exclusively, all along the entire process, and design is, by definition, 100% non-random.

[oVo]

If something is designed to be random and that design is successful at it's function,
you are claiming that the successful results of that design are not random?

or are you saying that you believe it to be impossible to create a random result?