These Dice, These Dice...

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:37 pm

...are absolutely fine (or so we will find out...)! (And you thought you'd have to lock this thread, eh, mods?

) The point of this thread is not to bash all those who dislike the dice, it is an experiment I'm starting up. I am going to record in this post all of my rolls each day, then calculate the probabilities to see if the dice are indeed unfair, or if the supposedly unfair instances are blown out of proportion. Feel free to do the same, anyone who wants to, but I would sincerely like to keep this thread clean of anti-dice or unrelated posts and comments. I want to keep this as strictly unbiased/objective as possible. I will be starting my records tomorrow (when I take my next turns).

-Sully

DATA:
-none-

by **Woodruff** on Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:54 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:...are absolutely fine (or so we will find out...)! (And you thought you'd have to lock this thread, eh, mods? ) The point of this thread is not to bash all those who dislike the dice, it is an experiment I'm starting up. I am going to record in this post all of my rolls each day, then calculate the probabilities to see if the dice are indeed unfair, or if the supposedly unfair instances are blown out of proportion. Feel free to do the same, anyone who wants to, but I would sincerely like to keep this thread clean of anti-dice or unrelated posts and comments. I want to keep this as strictly unbiased/objective as possible. I will be starting my records tomorrow (when I take my next turns).

There's a dice analyzer for that, you realize.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:01 pm

Yes, actually. But I feel hard evidence is what these people need, so I do this.

by **Woodruff** on Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:06 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:Yes, actually. But I feel hard evidence is what these people need, so I do this.

And that's fine. I just don't think the sample size will be meaningful until a couple of years have passed, so...

by **Commander62890** on Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:13 pm

The only serious complaint made is that the current intensity cubes are more "streaky" than real live dice.

I assume you will be analyzing the "streakiness" of your dice?

by **owenshooter** on Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:14 pm

Commander62890 wrote:I assume you will be analyzing the "streakiness" of your dice?

he could probably just eat more bran to take care of that problem... or wear darker under garments..-the black jesus

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:29 pm

HAR DE HAR. Unfortunately I forgot to record my dice rolls today, so I'll have to start tomorrow

by **dyingfetus** on Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:04 pm

I gotta say...the dice are horrible. but do u know whats not\? whiskey! whiskey is phenomenal

by **squishyg** on Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:26 pm

whiskey is phenomenal!

by **Victor Sullivan** on Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:05 am

Alright, I have some data in an Excel file. I'll post it when I have a substantial amount of data.

-Sully

by **Timminz** on Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:48 pm

Just use the dice-analyzer. It will be a lot easier, and you don't even have to remember to record your rolls.

by **squishyg** on Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:39 pm

Timminz wrote:Just use the dice-analyzer. It will be a lot easier, and you don't even have to remember to record your rolls.

now, now, don't deprive the lad of his fun. this work is in the name of science!

by **Master Fenrir** on Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:05 pm

squishyg wrote:
Timminz wrote:Just use the dice-analyzer. It will be a lot easier, and you don't even have to remember to record your rolls.

now, now, don't deprive the lad of his fun. this work is in the name of science!

Yeah, but the inevitability of human error means that data recorded in a notebook can only be trusted as much as you want to. The dice-analyzer script would proBably be better in the name of science.

by **Ace Rimmer** on Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:24 pm

Master Fenrir wrote:
squishyg wrote:
Timminz wrote:Just use the dice-analyzer. It will be a lot easier, and you don't even have to remember to record your rolls.

now, now, don't deprive the lad of his fun. this work is in the name of science!

Yeah, but the inevitability of human error means that data recorded in a notebook can only be trusted as much as you want to. The dice-analyzer script would proably be better in the name of science.

Until you realize that it was programmed by a mod who is in lack's pocket to make it seem that the dice intensity cubes are indeed random...

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

by **laughingcavalier** on Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:31 pm

I'm all for sully doing it the hard way. The harder he works the more beautiful his results will be. Beauty being truth, the results will give us much more insight than the dice analyzer could.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:00 pm

laughingcavalier wrote:I'm all for sully doing it the hard way. The harder he works the more beautiful his results will be. Beauty being truth, the results will give us much more insight than the dice analyzer could.

Indeedy do! Thanks, cav.

by **KoolBak** on Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:30 pm

so today i took 4 turns in a hurry; in 16 rolls, singleton defenders rolled 13 6's and 3 5's. streaky.....random......taught my kids some words not to repeat. seems to me its been this way on and off all the time i have been here....lol. i dont want to do the research...we are no longer using www.random.blowme?