Dice probability

[far2ezee]

I'm sure theres a topic for this but thought someone could answer this pretty quick.

What is the probability that a 3 v 1 roll will succeed or fail.

Thanks in advance

[Metsfanmax]

If you mean attacking with three (that is, 4 or more troops on your territory), then

Succeed: 66%
Fail: 34%

If you mean your territory only has three, then

Succeed: 58%
Fail: 42%

[BigBallinStalin]

Nice avi, far2ezee.

[chapcrap]

If you mean attacking with three (that is, 4 or more troops on your territory), then

Succeed: 66%
Fail: 34%

If you mean your territory only has three, then

Succeed: 58%
Fail: 42%

I thought the odds were better than that. I need to look at my Odds Add-On again.

[Robinette]

If you mean attacking with three (that is, 4 or more troops on your territory), then

Succeed: 66%
Fail: 34%

If you mean your territory only has three, then

Succeed: 58%
Fail: 42%

The above numbers are for a single attack...
If this is a Do or Die situation, and you will keep attacking no matter what, then the odds will look like this:

4 troops vs 1 troop = 91% chance of success .... 9% Fail

3 troops vs 1 troop = 75% chance of success .... 25% Fail

[chapcrap]

If you mean attacking with three (that is, 4 or more troops on your territory), then

Succeed: 66%
Fail: 34%

If you mean your territory only has three, then

Succeed: 58%
Fail: 42%

The above numbers are for a single attack...
If this is a Do or Die situation, and you will keep attacking no matter what, then the odds will look like this:

4 troops vs 1 troop = 91% chance of success .... 9% Fail

3 troops vs 1 troop = 75% chance of success .... 25% Fail

Yes, those were the odds I was thinking of. Thanks Robinette

[far2ezee]

Thanks for that guys. So next question how the hell did I just loose 9v1? I mean really what are the chances of that if we were playing on a real board with real dice!!!
I'm sorry but there is just no way that the dice algorythms are completely random imo...

[Crazyirishman]

Inb4 moved to q&a/ merged with a dice are rigged thread

[liamrisksmart]

Attacker: one die; Defender: one die:

Attacker wins 15 out of 36 (41.67 %)
Defender wins 21 out of 36 (58.33 %)


Attacker: two dice; Defender: one die:

Attacker wins 125 out of 216 (57.87 %)
Defender wins 91 out of 216 (42.13 %)


Attacker: three dice; Defender: one die:

Attacker wins 855 out of 1296 (65.97 %)
Defender wins 441 out of 1296 (34.03 %)


Attacker: one die; Defender: two dice:

Attacker wins 55 out of 216 (25.46 %)
Defender wins 161 out of 216 (74.54 %)


Attacker: two dice; Defender: two dice:

Attacker wins both: 295 out of 1296 (22.76 %)
Defender wins both: 581 out of 1296 (44.83 %)
Both win one: 420 out of 1296 (32.41 %)


Attacker: three dice; Defender: two dice:

Attacker wins both: 2890 out of 7776 (37.17 %)
Defender wins both: 2275 out of 7776 (29.26 %)
Both win one: 2611 out of 7776 (33.58 %)



courtesy of http://www.plainsboro.com/~lemke/risk/

[Metsfanmax]

Thanks for that guys. So next question how the hell did I just loose 9v1? I mean really what are the chances of that if we were playing on a real board with real dice!!!
I'm sorry but there is just no way that the dice algorythms are completely random imo...

The chances of that are 0.1% with real dice (and also 0.1% with Conquer Club intensity cubes).

[musicalmaven]

it has been a while since i last posted a comment on the dice.
as some have pointed out - that number is too small to be significant (as every roll is important toward winning a game, that statement is only accurate in a general discussion, not to the player involved).
i now have over 10,000 throws recorded (3 vs. 2) and over 8,000 (3 vs.1)and i just checked my dice analyzer. i am in the negative in all 6 categories of winning.
i also check my dice stats for my last 25 battles - guess what??? i am in the negative on all 3 luck categories
i have complained for years that something is wrong with the dice computer.
as i have stated previously, i have kept track of all my dice rolls for over 3 1/2 years and i have never been above avg. (in the accumulative results).
everyone said that now that we have the dice stats and the dice analyzer, this would prove that the cc dice are good.
i do not know how the over-all stats are for the club, and quite frankly, i don't care. i only care that i have never been better than average and the dice stats that cc provides again has me perfectly negative.
to me that says something is wrong. somewhere along the line, everybody should be above as well as below average. we all should fluctuate above and below the avg. line.

[Metsfanmax]

it has been a while since i last posted a comment on the dice.
as some have pointed out - that number is too small to be significant (as every roll is important toward winning a game, that statement is only accurate in a general discussion, not to the player involved).
i now have over 10,000 throws recorded (3 vs. 2) and over 8,000 (3 vs.1)and i just checked my dice analyzer. i am in the negative in all 6 categories of winning.
i also check my dice stats for my last 25 battles - guess what??? i am in the negative on all 3 luck categories
i have complained for years that something is wrong with the dice computer.
as i have stated previously, i have kept track of all my dice rolls for over 3 1/2 years and i have never been above avg. (in the accumulative results).
everyone said that now that we have the dice stats and the dice analyzer, this would prove that the cc dice are good.
i do not know how the over-all stats are for the club, and quite frankly, i don't care. i only care that i have never been better than average and the dice stats that cc provides again has me perfectly negative.
to me that says something is wrong. somewhere along the line, everybody should be above as well as below average. we all should fluctuate above and below the avg. line.

Your CC dice stats clearly say that you are slightly above average overall!

Overall dice rolls
musicalmaven 4.9
Luck Avg Roll
Assault 0% 3.50
Defend +1% 3.52
Total 0% 3.51

[Army of GOD]

[liamrisksmart]

odds of losing a 9v1. including the 2v1 and 1v1 rolls is 0.000381641091 i think

[Master Fenrir]

Thanks for that guys. So next question how the hell did I just loose 9v1? I mean really what are the chances of that if we were playing on a real board with real dice!!!
I'm sorry but there is just no way that the dice algorythms are completely random imo...

Was it part of an escalating sweep? If so, I find a good rule of thumb is to take whatever the odds calculator says and subtract .15.

[Army of GOD]

Thanks for that guys. So next question how the hell did I just loose 9v1? I mean really what are the chances of that if we were playing on a real board with real dice!!!
I'm sorry but there is just no way that the dice algorythms are completely random imo...

Was it part of an escalating sweep? If so, I find a good rule of thumb is to take whatever the odds calculator says and subtract .15.

No way. It's .60 for me.

[chapcrap]

i have kept track of all my dice rolls for over 3 1/2 years and i have never been above avg. (in the accumulative results).

I'm gonna call BS. You did not keep track of your dice for 3.5 years. Every roll.

[far2ezee]

I tell you what I find, when the times are good, they are good. when they are bad, you might as well stop, take a deep breath and walk to the nearest pub and get hammered as they will not get better that night... Or recently, week. You sometimes get rolls where there is an absolute pattern. Loose loose win 1, loose loose, win 1.

So if what Liam is saying is correct, 9v1 - 0.0004 chance of loosing, the probability of me having those odds 3 times in the last 4 days is just ridiculous. It's absolutely been the case, no joke.
What I'm fed up with is that you have to literally adapt your playing style basaed on the fact that you absolutely know you aren't going to win. I mean how hard is it to get an algorythm that is completely random?

[trinicardinal]

Thanks for that guys. So next question how the hell did I just loose 9v1? I mean really what are the chances of that if we were playing on a real board with real dice!!!
I'm sorry but there is just no way that the dice algorythms are completely random imo...

I've experienced far worse that this with real dice and the real board

[natty dread]

So if what Liam is saying is correct, 9v1 - 0.0004 chance of loosing, the probability of me having those odds 3 times in the last 4 days is just ridiculous.

Improbable maybe, not impossible. Good players know the difference.

What I'm fed up with is that you have to literally adapt your playing style basaed on the fact that you absolutely know you aren't going to win. I mean how hard is it to get an algorythm that is completely random?

How hard it is? Try impossible. You cannot have an algorithm that is completely random. Algorithms cannot produce random numbers. They can approximate them, but not produce real randomness.

That's why CC:s numbers are not generated by algorithms, but instead sampled from atmospheric noise, which gives actual random numbers, or as close to as makes any difference.

You have to "adapt your playing style" - well no shit, of course you do. That's what good players do: adapt to circumstances. So you can't always be 100% certain you win with higher numbers - big deal. That's where the strategy comes in: good players play probabilities. Nothing is ever certain, but in the long run, if your strategy is solid, you'll win more than you lose. If you don't, then you're probably just not a very good player.

[zimmah]

another person who fals to understand that 0,0000000000001% is not the same as 0% and 99.9999999999999999999999999% is not the same as 100%.

even tho 0,0000000000001% is unlikely to happen, it WILL happen sometimes.

[musicalmaven]

ok - first let me apologize for taking so long to respond - i have ben very busy the last week or so and barely had time to play my games.
first - to metsfan. i don't know what the hell you are looking at when you say i am slightly above average.
i said it two weeks ago and i am saying it again - my results are below average (for the last 25 games - a better basis for determining how things are going).
right now the dice analyzer reads : for me for my opponents
luck avg. roll luck avg. roll
assaults 0% 3.51 + 14% 3.84
defense +4% 3.60 + 0% 3.49
yes, my defense is better than my opponents, but on my attacks i am significantly behind my opponents, which translates to a lot of failed attacks, which translates into a lot of lost games.
also for my last 25 games, here are the results for the number of dice used:
3 vs. 2 3 vs. 1 2 vs. 2 2 vs. 1 1 vs. 2 1 vs. 1
assault -14% -10% n/a n/a n/a n/a
defense + 7% + 4% -11% n/a - 75%* +42%*
* indicates only 1 throw
again, my defense is good, but my offense sucks - which translates to - see above.
in your post you seem to take great joy in saying my avg. roll is slightly above normal and imply that my facts are wrong and i am not below average.
what you and your cohorts miss in these complaints is that if 3.5 is normal and i am at 3.51,and as a result i should be happy to be better than normal - my opponent is at 3.89, so my being slightly above average is lost behind my opponent's 3.89.
the object of the game is to win, and to win you relay on strategy, dice rolls and cards for extra armies. however, strategy takes a back seat to the dice in determining a winner. if you get lousy dice, your strategy will not succeed
i also stated in my post that my dice stats are also all in the negative.
as of this post my dice stats are as follows:
3 vs. 2 3 vs. 1 2 vs. 2 2 vs. 1 1 vs. 2 1 vs. 1
-.38% -.67% -3.53% -1.07% -8.79% -1.91%
remember, i have used the dice stat now for about a year, so these results are based on a great number of throws, so are statistically significant.
two weeks ago i wrote that all my computer generated stats were in the negative. today, 2 weeks later, with the exception of my defense for my last 25 games, all my stats are still in the negative.
it's interesting how before these computer generated statistics all you defenders of the system said we who complained were only remembering our loses and forgetting all the small, and maybe not so small, wins that offset the loses and got us to the average.
you all also said that now that we have the computer generated stats your position would be verified.
well here are your computer generated stats, and they show what i have been saying for these past years - something is wrong.
it has been my position that the numbers, overall, may be as close to random as possible, but when the numbers come down to individuals - it is as if the computer has selected certain individuals to be constantly the recipients of lousy dice, bad luck and lousy karma.
which brings me to my second response - yes chapcrap i have kept records for every throw for all these years, and, as i have stated on many other occasions, i have never had my accumulated totals go above average.
to me there is something wrong when the statistics reflect results like that over so long a time frame.

[musicalmaven]

i'm sorry - when i typed the above all the stats were neatly lined up, but upon posting they have been compressed and are not as clear and understandable as i would have liked, and i do not know how to fix it.
i guess i could list them in a column rather than a row. maybe that would allow them to be clearer.
if anyone cannot follow what the list shows please post a request and i will try to re-do them.

[natty dread]

Code: Select all

Overall battle outcomes
     musicalmaven 4.9   vs   all opponents
     3 vs 2    3 vs 1    2 vs 2    2 vs 1    1 vs 2    1 vs 1
     Luck    Kills    Losses    Luck    Kills    Losses    Luck    Kills    Losses    Luck    Kills    Losses    Luck    Kills    Losses    Luck    Kills    Losses
Assault    0%    18517    15973    0%    8841    4616    +4%    98    128    +1%    273    193    -1%    12    36    0%    90    128
Defend    0%    17534    20610    0%    3976    7585    +2%    406    236    +1%    362    478    +7%    106    24    0%    292    205
Total    0%    36051    36583    0%    12817    12201    +3%    504    364    +1%    635    671    +5%    118    60    0%    382    333

Seems like you have a neat row of 0:s there.

What you need to look are the overall stats. Not the "last 25" or any shit like that, and not the dice numbers - the overall battle outcomes are the most meaningful stats. Why? Well, the dice numbers are entirely dependent on context - a 2 can be a good roll if your opponent only rolls 1:s, or it can be a bad one if your opponent rolls 3:s. Battle outcomes show your actual dice luck. But as we all know, 25 is way too small a sample, you have to look at the overall stats.

[musicalmaven]

ok natty.
i do not claim to be fully versed in what the numbers mean.
on my current battle outcomes chart it reads (under the 3 vs. 2 column):
assault wins 19598 loses 17762
defend wins 17768 loses 20920
total wins 37276 loses 37682
please explain these numbers to me. i get that the "total" row is the addition of the assault and defense rows, but i do not get how you can put the two together.
does the assault numbers reflect individual dice throws (my 5, 4 and 2 vs. my opponents 5 & 3, hence i lose a man and he loses a man) or does it reflect the total result (i beat 19,598 territories but failed to beat 17,762 territories)?
what causes the percentage to change? the normal winning percentage is about 53.9%. does a +1% indicate a winning percentage over 54.9%?