Question about dice...

[KLOBBER]

I already addressed that issue in this thread. You either failed to read it or you failed to comprehend it.

Do you think that they designed the dice to be predictable? You really do seem to think that.

If you do, then you have something seriously wrong with your brain.

Nope, definitely something wrong with yours though. I already told you, they want the dice to be RANDOM. RANDOM RANDOM RANDOM RANDOM. Can you get that through your yadda yadda yadda freak out freak out freak out over and over and over.... snap! crackle! pop! random random random blah blah blah....

Funny, funny little man.... LOL -- calm down!

I have read Lack's quotes on the dice many times.

Although I don't agree with them, I am at peace with them.

I have already explained in detail the answer to your little question, above, in this very thread. This is the third and final time that I have attempted to penetrate your troglodyte-esque anger and fear in order to inform you of this fact, and I would hope that your brain possesses the necessary strength to grasp it this time around. If not, then I pity you deeply, as I won't make another attempt. Third time's a charm!

You will just have to scroll up in order to see my detailed answer, if your apparently fragile mind can handle the strain of doing so.

[Mr_Adams]

In an effort to end this entire tirade:

The dice are completely unpredictable. You have no chance of predicting whether you're going to roll a 1 or a 6. However, statistically, you have a 16.6% chance of guessing correctly when attempting to predict the dice. There is no pattern, no cycle, nothing. The dice are essentially Pi (3.1415926535...) - never repeating.

The statistical anomalies that occur are living proof of this. 4 can beat 100. 100,000 can lose to 2. The chances are slim, but it is a probability. This probability cannot be predicted.

All good?

you confuse probable and possible.

[maniacmath17]

I already addressed that issue in this thread. You either failed to read it or you failed to comprehend it.

Do you think that they designed the dice to be predictable? You really do seem to think that.

If you do, then you have something seriously wrong with your brain.

Nope, definitely something wrong with yours though. I already told you, they want the dice to be RANDOM. RANDOM RANDOM RANDOM RANDOM. Can you get that through your skull? Nowhere did they ever say they wanted it to be "unpredictable." Yet you insist that that is what they want without any proof. If you really have already proved this fact, then surely it wouldn't be very hard to say it a 2nd time? Otherwise all you have is some ridiculous claim.

Here's my proof: Quote from lackattack: "The dice are now powered by random numbers from random.org. I won't go into the complicated details, but there may have been some "stickyness" to the dice that made them repeat themselves. This is just a theory and I'm not even sure if there was a problem. But the new dice are truly random and now I can safely ignore any complaints about them "

Now where is yours?

Funny, funny little man.... LOL -- calm down!

I have read Lack's quotes on the dice many times, and although I don't agree with them, I am at peace with them.

I already explained in detail the answer to your question, above, in this very thread. This is the third and final time that I have attempted to penetrate your anger and fear in order to inform you of this fact, and I hope that your brain possesses the strength to grasp it this time. If not, then I pity you deeply, as I won't make another attempt.

You will just have to scroll up in order to see my detailed answer, if your apparently fragile mind can handle the strain of doing so.

Lol. I know you've been messing with us this whole time, but it was fun because you would at least put together some sort of answer to a question. But your response to this one is just lame. All you've said in response is "I already explained in detail the answer to your question."

Please KLOBBER, just give an answer. It's not fun when you pretend to have answered already.

[KLOBBER]

I already explained in detail the answer to your little question, above, in this very thread. This is the third and final time that I have attempted to penetrate your troglodyte-esque anger and fear in order to inform you of this fact, and I hope that your brain possesses the necessary strength to grasp it this time around. If not, then I pity you deeply, as I won't make another attempt. Third time's a charm!

You will just have to scroll up in order to see my detailed answer, if your apparently fragile mind can handle the strain of doing so.

Please KLOBBER, just give an answer....

Even more fragile than I thought, sadly.

[Mr_Adams]

realized I never answered the question @ threads begining. 32v3 ended 3v2...

[maniacmath17]

I already explained in detail the answer to your little question, above, in this very thread. This is the third and final time that I have attempted to penetrate your troglodyte-esque anger and fear in order to inform you of this fact, and I hope that your brain possesses the necessary strength to grasp it this time around. If not, then I pity you deeply, as I won't make another attempt. Third time's a charm!

You will just have to scroll up in order to see my detailed answer, if your apparently fragile mind can handle the strain of doing so.

Please KLOBBER, just give an answer....

Even more fragile than I thought, sadly.

Fine don't answer. I wasn't expecting you to. But insulting me because I couldn't "find" the answer that you never posted is uncalled for.

EDIT: Also, I guess you've never taken debate before, but what you just pulled would never fly. If during a rebuttal you are asked to site a source, you can't simply say you already answered that. Either you must provide it at that moment, or have that claim thrown out.

[kiddicus maximus]

In an effort to end this entire tirade:

The dice are completely unpredictable. You have no chance of predicting whether you're going to roll a 1 or a 6. However, statistically, you have a 16.6% chance of guessing correctly when attempting to predict the dice. There is no pattern, no cycle, nothing. The dice are essentially Pi (3.1415926535...) - never repeating.

The statistical anomalies that occur are living proof of this. 4 can beat 100. 100,000 can lose to 2. The chances are slim, but it is a probability. This probability cannot be predicted.

All good?

you confuse probable and possible.

DAMNIT! You are 100% correct, I actually meant possibility, somehow wrote probability. Grammatical error #1.

[maniacmath17]

I basically agree with what you said kiddicus. That's the view all rational people have. For Klobber, the number 16.6% seems arbitrary because he doesn't understand probability.

What you have to realize though, is that while losing 100,000 to 2 or winning 4 v 100 is possible with random dice, the sheer unlikeliness of it brings up the possibility of "streakyness" in the dice. Especially when there are many instances of such anomalies.

[Sperpurber]

Klobber, quit employing circular reasoning to aggravate the statisticians. Your explanation isn't even valid. Of course there are odds when rolling dice. I believe they made a few games based around this fact...

read!

My reasoning is not circular, it is direct and clear. Theirs is circular and nonsensical.

In addition, their premise is that the CC dice are somehow predictable, which is a flawed premise.

Actually, the CC dice are unpredictable.

Predictions are based on probability, which is inherent in any random number generators with a cap (eg: 1-6 as opposed to 1-∞).

As I have stated many times, and as most dice complainers also agree, the CC dice are not random.

Well they, as you are so eloquent at pointing out without cause, are wrong.

[xelabale]

KLOBBER says there are no odds, it's entirely unpredictable.

I roll the die. It shows 3. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 0%

OR

I roll the die. It shows a 1. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 100%

I never wrote any of those things -- you wrote all of them. Thank you for accurately demonstrating the straw-man logical fallacy, and nothing more.

Ooops, you forgot to mention that I quoted you directly above!! Must have got cut out of your quote by mistake.

LOL it was fun KLOBBER, you cunning little troll you. Have fun winding the others up, just remember that whilst it's funny, people will think you're an idiot!! Enjoy

[Thezzaruz]

I already told you, they want the dice to be RANDOM. RANDOM RANDOM RANDOM RANDOM. ... Nowhere did they ever say they wanted it to be "unpredictable."

Well if you stopped arguing semantics you might make some headway here. "Random" as a concept is not something everyone agrees with when it comes to designed programs (just as the CC dice are) and in that case "Unpredictable" is the best you can get. The difference on the actual end result produced (the CC dice for us) is however none at all.
(though everyone agree that the program in your calculator or the one you made in that first programming classes you mentioned doesn't pass many of the tests for "true randomness")

What you have to realize though, is that while losing 100,000 to 2 or winning 4 v 100 is possible with random dice, the sheer unlikeliness of it brings up the possibility of "streakyness" in the dice. Especially when there are many instances of such anomalies.

Have you even looked at how the CC dice work and what mathematical/statistical test that have been made on the dice file???

Here's my proof: Quote from lackattack: "The dice are now powered by random numbers from random.org. I won't go into the complicated details, but there may have been some "stickyness" to the dice that made them repeat themselves. This is just a theory and I'm not even sure if there was a problem. But the new dice are truly random and now I can safely ignore any complaints about them "

Wait a minute. So your proof is a quote from lack. A quote you don't trust or believe to be true. How does that work???

1. There is most certainly a pattern to the CC dice. It is not divulged to the players in specific detail before games are played out, so it remains unpredictable to the players, but there can be no denying that it is a static list of predetermined, non-random, unpredictable numbers.

Now, because it is definitely a predetermined, static list, there is a 100% likelihood of the first number on that list (in the exact same order on the static list as it previously appeared on the other site) appearing first on this site, and a 100% likelihood of the second number appearing second, and so on. Conversely, there is a 0% likelihood of the first number on the list not appearing first, &c. The dice complainers' failure to apprehend these facts is partially to blame for their confusion, fright, anger, and painfully extended and laughable "blowhard" type folly.

While I still agree with you in general (especially on the pattern part) you forgot about the fact that the dice is universal here on CC. Meaning that it's very rare for a single specific game to get several consecutive lined from the dice file. So the lines still appear in their order they just do it spread out over several games.

[KLOBBER]

Klobber, quit employing circular reasoning to aggravate the statisticians. Your explanation isn't even valid. Of course there are odds when rolling dice. I believe they made a few games based around this fact...

read!

My reasoning is not circular, it is direct and clear. Theirs is circular and nonsensical.

In addition, their premise is that the CC dice are somehow predictable, which is a flawed premise.

Actually, the CC dice are unpredictable.

Predictions are based on probability, which is inherent in any random number generators with a cap (eg: 1-6 as opposed to 1-∞).

As I have stated many times, and as most dice complainers also agree, the CC dice are not random.

Well they, as you are so eloquent at pointing out without cause, are wrong.

They are usually wrong, yes, but when they say that the dice are not random, they are right.

Also, when someone is wrong, there is always a cause to point that out.

[KLOBBER]

1. There is most certainly a pattern to the CC dice. It is not divulged to the players in specific detail before games are played out, so it remains unpredictable to the players, but there can be no denying that it is a static list of predetermined, non-random, unpredictable numbers.

Now, because it is definitely a predetermined, static list, there is a 100% likelihood of the first number on that list (in the exact same order on the static list as it previously appeared on the other site) appearing first on this site, and a 100% likelihood of the second number appearing second, and so on. Conversely, there is a 0% likelihood of the first number on the list not appearing first, &c. The dice complainers' failure to apprehend these facts is partially to blame for their confusion, fright, anger, and painfully extended and laughable "blowhard" type folly.

While I still agree with you in general (especially on the pattern part) you forgot about the fact that the dice is universal here on CC. Meaning that it's very rare for a single specific game to get several consecutive lined from the dice file. So the lines still appear in their order they just do it spread out over several games.[/quote]

No, I didn't forget that -- it matters not.

The point is that the list order is predetermined and static. Therefore, the odds of the first number on the list showing up first on CC are 100%, the odds of the second number on the list showing up here second are 100%, &c.

The fact that no player can predict the specific numbers does not change the odds as I have stated them, above.

[KLOBBER]

I basically agree with what you said kiddicus. That's the view all rational people have. For Klobber, the number 16.6% seems arbitrary because he doesn't understand probability.

I do understand probability. However, what you fail to understand is that your limited view of probability does not apply to the CC dice as far as prediction goes, as they are unpredictable. Your premise that they are predictable is unscientific and incorrect, and it throws a monkey wrench into ALL of your calculations, no matter how simple or convoluted.

[KLOBBER]

I already explained in detail the answer to your little question, above, in this very thread. This is the third and final time that I have attempted to penetrate your troglodyte-esque anger and fear in order to inform you of this fact, and I hope that your brain possesses the necessary strength to grasp it this time around. If not, then I pity you deeply, as I won't make another attempt. Third time's a charm!

You will just have to scroll up in order to see my detailed answer, if your apparently fragile mind can handle the strain of doing so.

Please KLOBBER, just give an answer....

Even more fragile than I thought, sadly.

Fine don't answer. I wasn't expecting you to. But insulting me because I couldn't "find" the answer that you never posted is uncalled for.

EDIT: Also, I guess you've never taken debate before, but what you just pulled would never fly. If during a rebuttal you are asked to site a source, you can't simply say you already answered that. Either you must provide it at that moment, or have that claim thrown out.

I did answer, you just missed it.

This isn't a debate rebuttal, this is just a gaming forum. I'm having fun watching you squirm, and I have no intention of making this any easier for you. If you were a kind person, I would have found my answer over again for you, but since you're not, I consider it your responsibility. Besides, I know that the only reason you want to see my answer is so that you can attempt to criticize it, so why on earth would I want to do your scrolling up for you? That's crap, cupcake -- pure crap!

My refusal to cooperate with you is merely one of the many means at my disposal to wear you down -- muhuhuhuhaahaahaahaaahaaaaah! In addition, your question is unimportant and childish, so it didn't warrant any answer to begin with, so you should consider it a gift that I answered it at all.

I'm actually toying with the idea of going up and editing the answer out of my previous post, just to piss you off, but I'm leaning towards the conclusion that you're not even worth the 40 seconds of effort that would take.

By the way, I have taken debate.

[KLOBBER]

KLOBBER says there are no odds, it's entirely unpredictable.

I roll the die. It shows 3. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 0%

OR

I roll the die. It shows a 1. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 100%

I never wrote any of those things -- you wrote all of them. Thank you for accurately demonstrating the straw-man logical fallacy, and nothing more.

Ooops, you forgot to mention that I quoted you directly above!! Must have got cut out of your quote by mistake.

Everybody quotes somebody at some point, and that is not worth pointing out.

However, when someone is misquoted, as you misquoted me above, by fabricating statements from your own overly fertile imagination and claiming that I said them, that's worth pointing out.

People who do what you have done are called liars.

[Sperpurber]

They are usually wrong, yes, but when they say that the dice are not random, they are right.

Also, when someone is wrong, there is always a cause to point that out.

When I make this point, I do so with fervor and conviction, as I find you and them emphatically incorrect.

I know these things beyond a shadow of a doubt, something people such as you must fail to realize, much to their chagrin.

[KLOBBER]

LOL

Alas and alack, ye do sorely vex any and all would-be detractors, and rightly so.

[Sperpurber]

LOL

Alas and alack, ye do sorely vex any and all would-be detractors, and rightly so.

There is no other way, it is my trade.

[KLOBBER]

LOL

Alas and alack, ye do sorely vex any and all would-be detractors, and rightly so.

There is no other way, it is my trade.

Bully! Kudos and bully to you!

[maniacmath17]

Thezzarus. I think you're missing the point of this topic. Here's a quick recap.

1. I suggest the dice are streaky based on some outrageous results that are highly unlikely given random dice.

2. Klobber says the goal is for the dice to be unpredictable and since the current dice are unpredictable, they are perfect as they are.

3. I use the quote from Lack to show that the goal is to have random dice. Obviously I question lack's assumption that the dice are random due to what I said in #1. But the point of the quote is to show that here at CC our goal is to strive for random dice.

As for the definition of random, here it is for a 2nd time according to dictionary.com: of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

As for you KLOBBER. Whatever you allegedly said or didn't say doesn't even matter really. I've got the quote from lack clearly stating that he wants the dice to be random. So your claim that he wants them to be unpredictable is wrong regardless of what you say on the matter.

Now that we've established the goal is for random dice, lets think about ways to either verify the current dice are random and/or figure out if there is a better way to make them as close to random as possible.

[Thezzaruz]

1. I suggest the dice are streaky based on some outrageous results that are highly unlikely given random dice.

Well you are wrong. Both in your assumption that there exists a problem (streakyness) and in your "proof" of that assumption (to small a sample, inherent psychological flaws in the observation of the "proof" amongst others).

2. Klobber says the goal is for the dice to be unpredictable and since the current dice are unpredictable, they are perfect as they are.

3. I use the quote from Lack to show that the goal is to have random dice. Obviously I question lack's assumption that the dice are random due to what I said in #1. But the point of the quote is to show that here at CC our goal is to strive for random dice.

You are missing the fact that for our purposes here on CC "unpredictable" is just as important as "random".

As for the definition of random, here it is for a 2nd time according to dictionary.com: of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

If you truly believe that to be the complete and relevant definition of random then I fully understand your problems with grasping the CC dice.

[Thezzaruz]

Now that we've established the goal is for random dice, lets think about ways to either verify the current dice are random and/or figure out if there is a better way to make them as close to random as possible.

As I've said before, the dice file has been proved to be random. You might not believe it or even understand it but that really isn't necessary.

[maniacmath17]

1.Well you are wrong. Both in your assumption that there exists a problem (streakyness) and in your "proof" of that assumption (to small a sample, inherent psychological flaws in the observation of the "proof" amongst others).


2.You are missing the fact that for our purposes here on CC "unpredictable" is just as important as "random".


3.If you truly believe that to be the complete and relevant definition of random then I fully understand your problems with grasping the CC dice.

1.I went through the calculations earlier with others also verifying the calculations. Again this was done with a limited sample but obviously there are many other stories of incredible dice results which would only make my claim more probable. Please look over the calculations and suggest where there was an incorrect assumption and/or miscalculation. This is what the thread is all about.

2. It's a bit redundant to say the goal is for unpredictable and random dice. By definition, random dice are unpredictable. The problem I have is with people like KLOBBER, who think that the goal is to have only unpredictable dice which I have yet to see any proof of. All i can go off of is lack's own words in which he says he wants the dice to be random.

3. This is the definition one would need to be familiar with if taking a statistics course. If you happen to have a different definition of random from perhaps a statistics textbook I would love to use that one instead.

If you don't like that one, here is something straight from a statistics textbook: "A sample is random if the method for obtaining the sample meets the criterion of randomness (each element having an equal chance at each draw)."

For a die to be random, on any toss there needs to be an equal probability of rolling a 1-6. Since the outcome of a roll is not dependent on previous rolls, random dice are inherently unpredictable. Hopefully this clears up any confusion you may have had on the subject.

[Thezzaruz]

1.I went through the calculations earlier with others also verifying the calculations. Again this was done with a limited sample but obviously there are many other stories of incredible dice results which would only make my claim more probable. Please look over the calculations and suggest where there was an incorrect assumption and/or miscalculation. This is what the thread is all about.

I highlighted the relevant part there. Having small samples that seem non-random being a part of the full sample is an expected part of randomness, some might even call it a needed part.

2. It's a bit redundant to say the goal is for unpredictable and random dice. By definition, random dice are unpredictable.

No it's anything but redundant as you yourself has proved repeatedly in this thread. The dictionary definition you have refereed to on occasion includes nothing about unpredictability. The programs you claimed produced randomness (your calculator and one you made yourself in school) would most certainly fail all mathematical unpredictability tests. And even though real life dice are unpredictable by definition that doesn't in any way transfer over to random number generators and as RNG's is the only way for us to go you severely underestimate the unpredictability part.