Question about dice...

[MrMoody]

If you say it enough times it becomes "truth" or "fact"

[KLOBBER]

You think that?

[MrMoody]

You think that?

No I was making a observation

[KLOBBER]

You think that?

No I was making a observation

An?

[maniacmath17]

KLOBBER, you still haven't answered my question by the way. How do you know which advantage is greater. 3 attacker dice, or 2 defender dice with ties going to defender? I would determine this through programs that calculate dice odds which of course you said are not applicable to this site. Direct quote: "Your assumption is that some calculation or another can be adequate to predict unpredictable dice, and that is an incorrect assumption" So how would you determine who has the edge?

[Robinette]

Yes, there is a third alternative, and that is the correct answer.

The correct answer is that the dice are pre-determined.

ummm... no... that would be the 2nd option

come on now,,, that last clue about who will win the Preakness should have been enough...

The words predestined and pre-determined have different meanings.

Oh come on... You're missing the point entirely...
And those 2 words are similar enough to share the 2nd option....

pre·des·tine (prē-děs'tĭn)
tr.v. pre·des·tined, pre·des·tin·ing, pre·des·tines

1. To fix upon, decide, or decree in advance; foreordain.

pre·de·ter·mine (prē'dĭ-tûr'mĭn)
v. pre·de·ter·mined, pre·de·ter·min·ing, pre·de·ter·mines

1. To determine, decide, or establish in advance

I'll give you another clue...

Will Mine That Bird win the Preakness today?

hehee... I'll tell you tomorrow...

The answer to the Preakness question above is, 'no'...
Rachel Alexandra, pitted against 12 males, had the talent and speed to hold off Mine That Bird’s late run, winning the middle leg of the Triple Crown by a full length.

Once you understand the connection, you will understand the 3rd option....

[john9blue]

Your assumption is that some calculation or another can be adequate to predict unpredictable dice

"You think that?"

Klobber, are you aware that you've lost this argument and you're just trying to cover your ass, or do you really believe that you know what you're talking about?

[Mr_Adams]

he's just playing the part of ryan32 for those of you who remember him. Either that or he doesn't realize that the dice aren't predictable in the short run, but in the long run, any *random* set can be predicted. in this case, a set of 1-6 (6 items) in say, 100,000 rolls, can be predicted to show aprox. 16,666 "1's" 16,666 "2's" ect. the emphasis here being on the word APPROXAMITLY. being truely random, you will see #'s more like 15,894 16,734 ect. all approxamate, all practicaly predictable.

[KLOBBER]

...the emphasis here being on the word APPROXAMITLY....

ROFLMFAO!!!



Thanks for that brilliant cipherin', Jethro!

I'm convinced that there is nobody on this site whose arguments receive as much unwitting support from his opponents as mine do.

[KLOBBER]

Yes, there is a third alternative, and that is the correct answer.

The correct answer is that the dice are pre-determined.

ummm... no... that would be the 2nd option

come on now,,, that last clue about who will win the Preakness should have been enough...

The words predestined and pre-determined have different meanings.

Oh come on... You're missing the point entirely...
And those 2 words are similar enough to share the 2nd option....

The difference between those two words is actually immense. Predestination has paranormal or philosophical implications, whereas pre-determination is completely down-to-earth, practical, and scientific, with no far-out implications.

The difference is similar to the immense difference between the phrases, "I'm determined to win," and "I'm DESTINED to win."

Those two phrases have extremely different meanings. The dice are most definitely pre-determined, on the previous website on which they appear, but unlike their pre-determination, there is no down-to-earth, practical, scientific evidence that they are "predestined."

[KLOBBER]

...you've lost this argument and....

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[thelastpatriot]

lost 23 vs 3 the other day Aor1 2 player game. Had a week of horrible dice but that one stood out

[maniacmath17]

Guys it's over. KLOBBER lost the argument a while ago when he admitted that he believed the attacker has the advantage. This of course is true as we can calculate the probability of the different outcomes in a 3 v 2 situation which gives a slight edge to the attacker. The problem is that with the way KLOBBER views the dice, there is no way to figure out whether the defender or the attacker will have the advantage. This is because he thinks the dice are purely unpredictable and therefore, the probability for any attack is impossible to determine.

I asked him like 4 or 5 times how he could know the attacker has the advantage given his views on dice, and he ignored the question every time, lol. So if you do decide to continue arguing with him and find yourself stuck at some point, just ask him this question and he will have no answer

[john9blue]

I asked him like 4 or 5 times how he could know the attacker has the advantage given his views on dice, and he ignored the question every time, lol. So if you do decide to continue arguing with him and find yourself stuck at some point, just ask him this question and he will have no answer

He will find some way to worm out of it. You might make a half decent politician, KLOBBER!

By the way, did you read his latest rebuttal towards me? Pure gold, that is.

[KLOBBER]

Guys it's over. KLOBBER lost the argument a while ago when he admitted that he believed the attacker has the advantage. This of course is true as we can calculate the probability of the different outcomes in a 3 v 2 situation which gives a slight edge to the attacker. The problem is that with the way KLOBBER views the dice, there is no way to figure out whether the defender or the attacker will have the advantage. This is because he thinks the dice are purely unpredictable and therefore, the probability for any attack is impossible to determine.

I asked him like 4 or 5 times how he could know the attacker has the advantage given his views on dice, and he ignored the question every time, lol. So if you do decide to continue arguing with him and find yourself stuck at some point, just ask him this question and he will have no answer

As I already posted, but you conveniently ignored:

"Simple dice manifestation is not the only factor at play in attacks. Attacker has advantage because he often has a greater number of dice in play than defender, therefore his likelihood of prevailing with higher numbers is heightened. Comparative advantage between attacker and defender is partially predictable. In cases where attacker and defender roll same number of dice, this advantage is nonexistent.

Dice themselves are still unpredictable in all cases, however."

There's the second time I answered that question. Is your brain dull enough to require a third?

[owenshooter]

i always just assumed that attackers rolling 3 dice vs. defenders 2 dice would always give the attacker the advantage... but i'm just simple minded...-0

[xelabale]

Yes, there is a third alternative, and that is the correct answer.

The correct answer is that the dice are pre-determined.

ummm... no... that would be the 2nd option

come on now,,, that last clue about who will win the Preakness should have been enough...

The words predestined and pre-determined have different meanings.

Oh come on... You're missing the point entirely...
And those 2 words are similar enough to share the 2nd option....

The difference between those two words is actually immense. Predestination has paranormal or philosophical implications, whereas pre-determination is completely down-to-earth, practical, and scientific, with no far-out implications.

The difference is similar to the immense difference between the phrases, "I'm determined to win," and "I'm DESTINED to win."

Those two phrases have extremely different meanings. The dice are most definitely pre-determined, on the previous website on which they appear, but unlike their pre-determination, there is no down-to-earth, practical, scientific evidence that they are "predestined."

\
You are incorrect. The words have no implications whatsoever. They may of course have different connotations. Learn basic English if you want to troll semantics.

[Thezzaruz]

Mind posting the link again? I couldn't find any information about how the streakyness tests were conducted. I don't ignore links.

I really cba to do your research over and over, but have a look in the suggs & buggs forum and it should be easily found.

Also, you ignore all the calculations made in this thread, including the one i recapped recently about the 30 v 1. How do you explain the results?

No I don't ignore them and I have already offered up several explanations that contribute in varying degrees.

KLOBBER's explanation wouldn't work for your argument because you are assuming the dice are random.

Not really comfortable with that statement seeing as you have used several definitions/examples of "random" in this thread and most of them I don't agree with.

Either that or he doesn't realize that the dice aren't predictable in the short run, but in the long run, any *random* set can be predicted. in this case, a set of 1-6 (6 items) in say, 100,000 rolls, can be predicted to show aprox. 16,666 "1's" 16,666 "2's" ect. the emphasis here being on the word APPROXAMITLY. being truely random, you will see #'s more like 15,894 16,734 ect. all approxamate, all practicaly predictable.

I'm not saying I disagree with you (I don't) but would you mind answering a question???

If you decided to view a sample of say, 100 out of those 100.000 rolls. What could you predict and/or approximate of its distribution??? (please be specific, the answer is quite important to maniac's basic argument)

[AAFitz]

I wonder, if the insane we sometimes see are like a rogue wave. For years scientists did not believe they were even possible. Their model for random waves just didnt include a model for these massive waves, which were witnessed by many captains, and certainly the death of many more. Only with the correct formula, and then satillite imaging, were they able to be proven.

That being said, I think its more likely to be hit by a rogue wave, than lose some of those rolls. Myself, Ive thrown many, and I do sometimes think I see patterns, and even adjust my play according to those patterns, even while knowing its not very rational. For the most part though, they have always seemed random to me, and if they were any less random, Im not sure this would be the game that it is.

I think the main problem is, the numbers of dice used is so vast, that its difficult to imagine. We are throwing our little dice in sea of thrown dice, and occasionally get hit by a rogue dice roll. It doesnt seem possible. It defies our intuitive logic, but nonetheless, if it happened, it is possible. What is concerning, is if 12 really beat 83...which really cant be taken for granted, it is difficult to imagine it happened on single attacks, so it does suggest auto made it possible. We could test it perhaps, but since its a once in 500,000,000 chance...it could take a while, and even then, there is no guarantee of reproducing it. And still there is always the possibility that the roll was simply remembered incorrectly... ie 112 v 83 or 102 vs 83... not likely, but considering the odds of the 12v 83.. its at least just as possible.

[jiminski]

We all know that Auto-Attack takes away the Randomness (hah as Xtratobasco always said, 'it lumps together the numbers' and he was right on that one very small thing, i guess it was all the bean-counting he did)... It highlights the flaw inherent to the way CC uses the 'randomly generated' numbers.
With large number of people drawing-off number lines for rolls, in the case of single 'Attack', this ensures a kind of randomness overall. But by taking a large consecutive lump of number of lines from the list this opens you up to 'steakiness'.

In individual cases: sometimes Auto is Even or approximately what we estimate to be fair; sometimes it vastly, insanely, improbably favours either attacker or defender.

So by the nature of the individual number-line 'randomness' and the overall sum of probability trends, that means the statistician Sully mentioned will say 'Da numbers iz random boyz!', as Auto attack even out over a large sample of rolls.
He is rightish but well.. we all know that this is very well educated and expert Cobblers when we examine the minutiae. (My bet is that the statistician was either 'Hyrassi' or Xtratabasco)

With more and more Speed games we will see more and more of these mental '300' style victories. That is true due to the greater pool of individual rolls heightening the probability of the improbable but it is also due to having to use the flawed Auto-attack to make a kill.

(my most recent tale of dice-wielding woe? : a couple of days back i got done auto-attacking with 37 v 27. After the auto had finished i was left with 3 v 11... that is really not that uncommon but it is irritating)

[KLOBBER]

...The words have no implications whatsoever. They may of course have different connotations....

You are incorrect -- all word have implications:

im⋅pli⋅ca⋅tion
–noun

the act of implying

im⋅ply
–verb (used with object), -plied, -ply⋅ing.

(of words) to signify or mean.

What words don't have meanings? Surely not the words "pre-determined" or "predestined!"

Surely, all words have meanings! Learn basic English if you want to troll semantics. Of course, you are a liar, so one should not be surprised that you also lack understanding of basic English.

[Thezzaruz]

We all know that Auto-Attack takes away the Randomness (hah as Xtratobasco always said, 'it lumps together the numbers' and he was right on that one very small thing, i guess it was all the bean-counting he did)... It highlights the flaw inherent to the way CC uses the 'randomly generated' numbers.
With large number of people drawing-off number lines for rolls, in the case of single 'Attack', this ensures a kind of randomness overall. But by taking a large consecutive lump of number of lines from the list this opens you up to 'steakiness'.

You sure about that??? The boys and girls in red have said that auto attack works just the same as normal attack, only that the cpu clicks faster than we can.

And no matter which way it is done, as the dice file is randomized what difference does it make? It's not like the same line is being used over and over or anything.

In individual cases: sometimes Auto is Even or approximately what we estimate to be fair; sometimes it vastly, insanely, improbably favours either attacker or defender.

That seems like quite a good explanation of "random". Can't say I expect the CC (or RL) dice to work in any other way tbh.

[KLOBBER]

The dice file is not "randomized."

That would necessarily involve there being the same "chance" of 1-6 rolling each time, and that is not the case.

The CC dice are unpredictable -- they are not "random," and not "randomized."

[Thezzaruz]

That would necessarily involve there being the same "chance" of 1-6 rolling each time, and that is not the case.

Well of course not, the numbers are fixed once they are put in lines into the dice file.

The dice file is not "randomized."

The CC dice are unpredictable -- they are not "random," and not "randomized."

Well I'll leave the discussion about TRNG's to another day, it's quite irrelevant here (though I must say that "random" and "unpredictable" does not exclude each other, a string of numbers or events can be both but again that is irrelevant here).

What I meant with randomized is that the numbers or lines of numbers in the dice file are not sorted in any way so taking 3 lines in succession would yield just as unpredictable numbers as taking 3 lines at random.

[jiminski]

We all know that Auto-Attack takes away the Randomness (hah as Xtratobasco always said, 'it lumps together the numbers' and he was right on that one very small thing, i guess it was all the bean-counting he did)... It highlights the flaw inherent to the way CC uses the 'randomly generated' numbers.
With large number of people drawing-off number lines for rolls, in the case of single 'Attack', this ensures a kind of randomness overall. But by taking a large consecutive lump of number of lines from the list this opens you up to 'steakiness'.

In individual cases: sometimes Auto is Even or approximately what we estimate to be fair; sometimes it vastly, insanely, improbably favours either attacker or defender. So by the nature of the individual number-line 'randomness' and the overall sum of probability trends, that means the statistician Sully mentioned will say 'Da numbers iz random boyz!', as Auto attack evens out over a large sample of rolls.
He is rightish but well.. we all know that this is very well educated and expert Cobblers when we examine the minutiae. (My bet is that the statistician was ... 'Hyrassi' ...)

With more and more Speed games we will see more and more of these mental '300' style victories. That is true due to the greater pool of individual rolls heightening the probability of the improbable but it is also due to having to use the flawed Auto-attack to make a kill.

...

You sure about that???

....

quite certain.