ITT: convince Army of GOD that there is a "dice problem"

[Shinmen Musashi]

I'm new to this site so I'm not sure I have enough dice rolls to establish this pattern. However, in the board game risk the attacker 3 on 2 has an advantage and 3 on 1 even bigger advantage. It seems to me as if 3 on 2 battles end up being close to 50/50 here. I dunno if this is the "dice problem" but its been my impression so far that it seems to be more of a 50/50 split then playing the board game risk. I haven't looked at data to see if this is true just my impression after a few thousand rolls.

[Army of GOD]

I'm new to this site so I'm not sure I have enough dice rolls to establish this pattern. However, in the board game risk the attacker 3 on 2 has an advantage and 3 on 1 even bigger advantage. It seems to me as if 3 on 2 battles end up being close to 50/50 here. I dunno if this is the "dice problem" but its been my impression so far that it seems to be more of a 50/50 split then playing the board game risk. I haven't looked at data to see if this is true just my impression after a few thousand rolls.

3 on 2 isn't an advantage because ties go to the defense.

[BigBallinStalin]

But ya got the "attacker's advantage" (AA) in the 3v2 setup.

For rolls involving 6 v 3, the AA doesn't seem significant, but when you scale up the rolls to 600 v 300, the AA kicks in real hard.

The AA is very small, but it has big effects when larger armies (or overall dice rolling) comes into play.

[Shinmen Musashi]

even with the tie, if you do the math and look at the possible outcomes it comes out to approximately

attacker kills 2 37%
1/1 split 34%
defender kills 2 29%

I rounded to the nearest %. I'm fine with it being 50/50 if it is. That's actually more fair in my opinion. However in the board game 3 on 2 the attacker has a noticeable advantage. So if you go from that to a 50/50 system the results are going to seem off.

[ztodd]

Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.

These things should not be expected to happen very often if the probability is the same every time for each different number. I have things like this happen, I think more often than they should- but I haven't been keeping track of how often it happens.

7/22: made correction- that=than

[BigBallinStalin]

even with the tie, if you do the math and look at the possible outcomes it comes out to approximately

attacker kills 2 37%
1/1 split 34%
defender kills 2 29%

I rounded to the nearest %. I'm fine with it being 50/50 if it is. That's actually more fair in my opinion. However in the board game 3 on 2 the attacker has a noticeable advantage. So if you go from that to a 50/50 system the results are going to seem off.

Go to the Tools section of the forum.

Search for Assault Odds.

The debate is over.

[ztodd]

even with the tie, if you do the math and look at the possible outcomes it comes out to approximately

attacker kills 2 37%
1/1 split 34%
defender kills 2 29%

I rounded to the nearest %. I'm fine with it being 50/50 if it is. That's actually more fair in my opinion. However in the board game 3 on 2 the attacker has a noticeable advantage. So if you go from that to a 50/50 system the results are going to seem off.

Go to the Tools section of the forum.

Search for Assault Odds.

The debate is over.

Assault odds was created by someone who knew nothing about the site programming. It's an add-on. It tells what the odds should be if you assume the site's dice have an even probability distribution among all numbers at all times. The debate is about whether this assumption is correct or not.

[iAmCaffeine]

According to ztodd, the fact that you "lost 18v2" is evidence that the dice aren't random. I'm assuming that's because losing 18v2 isn't expected.

ITT: iAmCaffiene admits he's an idiot

Hahaha wrong! According to ztodd, there is a "dice problem". Don't confuse yourself in your own troll thread.

If you weren't staring into your own asshole maybe you wouldn't miss what he said.

Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.

So do you not think that that is randomness?

It's not. It's been proven that it's not.

Proven? Where/how?

iAmCaffeine just gave pretty solid evidence- assuming it is true- how strong of evidence do you need before you will accept it as proof?

Nowhere does he use the exact phrase "dice problem" and he more closely agrees with the sentiment that it's not random.

Nowhere does he say the dice aren't random, however your thread specifies "dice problem" so therefore, that is what both his and my statements are regarding.

[Army of GOD]

Nowhere does he say the dice aren't random, however your thread specifies "dice problem" so therefore, that is what both his and my statements are regarding.

I understand you have the IQ of a dead goat so I'm going to try to go slow for you, but I never claimed he said that. You, on the other hand, used quotes around "dice problem" to imply that he had actually said such.

AoG: 55
iAmAnidiot: 0

[ConfederateSS]

Who cares???..What goes around comes around...I once won a baseball game in High School 35-0..next game ,lost 28-4.....I have had C.C.games I should have won but lost...I should have lost but won...I had a game I was down to one army and one terr..and won...I had all the terr..but one on Imperial Rome...up 70 vs 3...took me down 2 vs 1 then,1 vs 1..he cashed in on his turn for 180 armies and wiped me out.......Play a 1,000 ..lose a 1,000..then play a 1,000 more...things will turn around...they always do......Just don't win a 1,000...you know what's coming.HA!HA!HA!...stop blaming things beyond your control....and lighten up people...or THE FATES..will zap your ass...Thank You Kindly ConfederateSS....out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[iAmCaffeine]

No point wasting time on a troll.

[Kid Moe]

These dice are not random whatsoever on this site. Random by definition means "chosen, done, etc., without a particular plan or pattern" which these dice are not. Long ago in a post far far away Lack stated he bought fixed dice patters in bunches of 50,000.......hence that is not random, that is a joke. REMEMBER it's not the fact that I lose 9 vs 1 or 8 vs 1 that gets me mad.......it's the frequency it happens that will drive me away from this site someday. I have NEVER in my life seen 1 dice beat 3 with the frequency it does on this site. Time and time again I may start with 15, 16, 18 troops and have to kill maybe 6 singles to destroy an opponent and fail to do it.

Here is a great website to go to and it will give you probabilities on dice results BUT more importantly it gives the CODE for random dice!!!!! Scroll to near the bottom for the code......so my question is simple, can that code be used to calculate the results of every dice roll on this site

here is the site http://www.plainsboro.com/~lemke/risk Forgive me if this does not link

[ztodd]

Who cares???..What goes around comes around...I once won a baseball game in High School 35-0..next game ,lost 28-4.....I have had C.C.games I should have won but lost...I should have lost but won...I had a game I was down to one army and one terr..and won...I had all the terr..but one on Imperial Rome...up 70 vs 3...took me down 2 vs 1 then,1 vs 1..he cashed in on his turn for 180 armies and wiped me out.......Play a 1,000 ..lose a 1,000..then play a 1,000 more...things will turn around...they always do......Just don't win a 1,000...you know what's coming.HA!HA!HA!...stop blaming things beyond your control....and lighten up people...or THE FATES..will zap your ass...Thank You Kindly ConfederateSS....out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I care.

If the dice are "streaky" more often than they should be, then it's definitely possible for that fact to be exploited by those smart enough and morally dubious enough to do so.

[ConfederateSS]

It's not caring..it's worrying so much over a game,played for fun...As for Mr.Coffee...I know who wants to waste time on someone, anyone...That's what a lot of people have written to new comers and people just voicing some ideas and thoughts...I can't imagine why C.C. is losing people...But don't worry Confederates like hanging around and fighting lost causes...I will be around when the lights get turned off ...will you....Or will bad dice, rue the day for you.....Thank You Kindly.....ConfederateSS...out!!!!!!!!!!!

[jammyjames]

Thinking about this, I have now been able to monitor a continuous trend that is appearing in attacking a region with 2 men on.

In the majority of cases, my outcomes will do the following:

0-2
1-1
1-0

I've literally expeienced this about 15 out of every twenty attacks.

I will keep going and see if this pattern changes at all.

[BigBallinStalin]

even with the tie, if you do the math and look at the possible outcomes it comes out to approximately

attacker kills 2 37%
1/1 split 34%
defender kills 2 29%

I rounded to the nearest %. I'm fine with it being 50/50 if it is. That's actually more fair in my opinion. However in the board game 3 on 2 the attacker has a noticeable advantage. So if you go from that to a 50/50 system the results are going to seem off.

Go to the Tools section of the forum.

Search for Assault Odds.

The debate is over.

Assault odds was created by someone who knew nothing about the site programming. It's an add-on. It tells what the odds should be if you assume the site's dice have an even probability distribution among all numbers at all times. The debate is about whether this assumption is correct or not.

The dice are biased, but you'll have to ask Mets or someone else for specifics. If it's biased more toward 6s and less toward 1s, then the attackers' advantage should be stronger (I guess).