Conquer Club

Are you sure they are all sixes, or just that you lose 2? I think you exaggerate that the defense always rolls a six against you. The odds discussion we had earlier was specifically about rolling 8 consecutive sixes. If you're talking about just losing a 3v2 roll, the probability of that happening several times in a row is much, much greater.

72o wrote:Are you sure they are all sixes, or just that you lose 2? I think you exaggerate that the defense always rolls a six against you. The odds discussion we had earlier was specifically about rolling 8 consecutive sixes. If you're talking about just losing a 3v2 roll, the probability of that happening several times in a row is much, much greater.

NO, on round 3 this player had 6,6 / 6,6 / 6,6 / 6,6 on an attack by me, then on round 5 same player got 6,6 / 6,6 / 6,6 , then again, last round, round 9, the 12x10 that ended as 5x9

I dont even bother posting here the unfair "lose too many 2 in a row" (or "win too many 2 in a row" by that matter) that happen daily.

EVERYONE know that there ARE streaks, otherwise there would be NO such unanimous conviction about NEVER hitting autoattack here. If the dice are THAT random, then they should behave statistically consistent much more than they actually do, and hitting AUTOATTACK should not matter.

HOWEVER people here advice only to hit autoattack when odds are clearly AGAINST you, so you can hit on a streak and even win against night-to-impossible odds.

EDIT: on yet another round, trying a 9x4 ended as 2x3 against the same player.

EDIT2: there I go, down another rank, 3 ranks in a month. Of course, nothing to do with the dice, everything about bad play.of course, since I am a bad player, and should have never left cook status, the only rational option is that I was hacking the system previsouly. No other reason.

So far, in the same game, i burned 28 armies and killed a whopping THREE against the same player in the same game.

the only explanation I see> the rolls are generated by a seed and not some mythical all-perfect list. Get a bad seed for a game, and you´re toast, no matter what tactics you use.

So you say I complain because I am a bad player and I cannot see my good rolls.

Sure. Last week I was playing city mogul, and had 42 armies when I found a stack of 98 from an other player.

So, I did the only rational thing one can do> I hit Autoattack. I know I would either hit one or two from the opponent and be slughtered, or the opposite would accour.

Well, surprise>> and battle: 33x0 ... I lost NINE and killed over NINETY Why am I complaining, then?

BECAUSE IT IS NO FUN KNOWING YOU CANNOT PLAY WELL, YOU CAN ONLY HOPE for the system not to screw up and start behaving streakly. The above situation, for example, I could have had a mere 13 armies on a stack to kill the 98 blocking the way. WHO, HERE, ON A SIMILAR HASBRO BOARD GAME FOUGHT 13 X 98 AND WON?

I DARE ANYONE TO REPRODUCE THIS WITH REAL DICE Youtube me wrong, if you do, but no edditing.

I quote this directly from my stats book:

When computers were first used to generate hands in bridge tournaments, some professional bridge players complained that the computer was making too many "weird" hands - hands with 10 cards of one suit, for example. Suddenly these hands were appearing more often than players were used to when cards were shuffled by hand. The players assumed that the computer was doing something wrong. But it turns out that it's humans who hadn't been shuffling enough [7 times] to make the decks really random and have those "weird" hands appear as often as they should.

Yes, I know dice and cards are two different subjects. However, the principle behind the two are the same. Simly put, the longer you shake a dice, the more random it will be. However, we all know that most people won't leave it in their hands for more than 2 seconds, especially when you're doing 50 v 40 on the board,and you want to get it over with.

LOL! thats new. the real uniform regular cubes we know as 6-sided dice are not random, now, only computer-born generated or collected, gathered, classified and manipulated) are.

This is a bit too "1984" for me.

Oh, and btw, we have NO means to know how serious random.org is. Even governments lie a lot, why shouldn´t a company?

Try to set up their so-called atmospheric noise anntenae staff and computer apparatus and gather the zillions of numbers needed for everyone - free and bought -and see how much you should charge to make it possible.

RADAGA wrote:LOL! thats new. the real uniform regular cubes we know as 6-sided dice are not random, now, only computer-born generated or collected, gathered, classified and manipulated) are.

I'm not saying that the dice cannot be made random. I'm saying human nature seriously impedes it. Now think of the last time you played the actual board game. How often did you let the dice roll around in your hands for more than 2-4 seconds?

slowreactor wrote:I quote this directly from my stats book:

When computers were first used to generate hands in bridge tournaments, some professional bridge players complained that the computer was making too many "weird" hands - hands with 10 cards of one suit, for example. Suddenly these hands were appearing more often than players were used to when cards were shuffled by hand. The players assumed that the computer was doing something wrong. But it turns out that it's humans who hadn't been shuffling enough [7 times] to make the decks really random and have those "weird" hands appear as often as they should.

Yes, I know dice and cards are two different subjects. However, the principle behind the two are the same. Simly put, the longer you shake a dice, the more random it will be. However, we all know that most people won't leave it in their hands for more than 2 seconds, especially when you're doing 50 v 40 on the board,and you want to get it over with.

Additionally, real dice give sixes too often because reducing the material for the pips reduces the weight, making the one side the heaviest. I heard a rumor that dice in Vegas are specially manufactured with different depths for each number to insure equal weighting.

Also, that is why in most Casino dice games the make you through them so hard, to increase randomness.

But again, no real stats, research, or otherwise factual information allowed in this topic.

I have multiple personalities.

Some of them MUST have rolled a few million dice in the past few days.. because, just today, on game 5594945, I had a STREAK OF EIGHT LOSSES IN A ROW, ON A 3X1 BATTLE.

it is the second time within TWO MONTHS of something that should happen ONCE IN A LIFETIME!

If i try to reproduce this with real dice, and commit my bloodline to do it, we might see it happen with my grandchild, and to happen twice within a thousand rolls, with my grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-granchild, perhaps.

The issue with probability is that you can calculate what "should" happen all you want, but it has little to do with what "actually" happens.

Probability Theory
Dice
Sampling Equiprobably with Dice

IMHO, any sampling size short of something in the 100's of thousands of dice rolls would be trivial.



[ur=http://www.random.org/analysis/]Random.org Analysis Page[/url]

ubersky wrote:The issue with probability is that you can calculate what "should" happen all you want, but it has little to do with what "actually" happens.

Probability Theory
Dice
Sampling Equiprobably with Dice

IMHO, any sampling size short of something in the 100's of thousands of dice rolls would be trivial.



[ur=http://www.random.org/analysis/]Random.org Analysis Page[/url]

If that´s true, why we have statistics, anyway? It is worthless, and worse, it misleads you into taking into account some situations as more probable to happen then others, and since every situation have equal chances to happen, this is a problem.

If the story is true, the Xerxes musta been pissed when he moved the bulk of his forces from Turkey into Greece, and kept rolling 1's.

Too bad CC doesn't understand Force Multipliers.

Game : 5635911

Another EIGHT 3x1 loss in a row, this is the second one in this WEEK.

This is enough for anyone stopping believing the "random" attribute.

Explain that...

RADAGA wrote:Game 5635911

Another EIGHT 3x1 loss in a row, this is the second one in this WEEK.

This is enough for anyone stopping believing the "random" attribute.

Explain that...

No.... you're right. The site's dice were just programmed to hate you. Nothing to do with over 18000 people playing between 1 and about 175 games during each day... each rolling oh I don't know say a total of 15 dice per game per day..... let's see that's conservatively about 21 million dice rolls a day?? People are invited to correct my maths here...I'm kinda guessing.... But I wouldn't expect to see streaks either with those figures,... I mean that just can't be random then can it?

trinicardinal wrote:

RADAGA wrote:Game 5635911

Another EIGHT 3x1 loss in a row, this is the second one in this WEEK.

This is enough for anyone stopping believing the "random" attribute.

Explain that...

No.... you're right. The site's dice were just programmed to hate you. Nothing to do with over 18000 people playing between 1 and about 175 games during each day... each rolling oh I don't know say a total of 15 dice per game per day..... let's see that's conservatively about 21 million dice rolls a day?? People are invited to correct my maths here...I'm kinda guessing.... But I wouldn't expect to see streaks either with those figures,... I mean that just can't be random then can it?

So if I go to Vegas, where there are over 18.000 playing dice games at any day, I can guarantee I will have two streaks of eight wins in a row, even if I, myself, only roll twice.

just because there are a hundred million people rolling dice it does not mean a given subject will expect more unusual results than others.

PROBABILITY FOR ONE GIVEN PERSON TO EXPERIENCE A GIVEN NUMBER IS DUE TO HIS, AND HIS ROLLS ALONE.

To say otherwise is to assume that one guy who plays only 1 ticket a day will have greater chances to win the lottery the more poeple around him play.

RADAGA wrote:

trinicardinal wrote:

RADAGA wrote:Game 5635911

Another EIGHT 3x1 loss in a row, this is the second one in this WEEK.

This is enough for anyone stopping believing the "random" attribute.

Explain that...

No.... you're right. The site's dice were just programmed to hate you. Nothing to do with over 18000 people playing between 1 and about 175 games during each day... each rolling oh I don't know say a total of 15 dice per game per day..... let's see that's conservatively about 21 million dice rolls a day?? People are invited to correct my maths here...I'm kinda guessing.... But I wouldn't expect to see streaks either with those figures,... I mean that just can't be random then can it?

So if I go to Vegas, where there are over 18.000 playing dice games at any day, I can guarantee I will have two streaks of eight wins in a row, even if I, myself, only roll twice.

just because there are a hundred million people rolling dice it does not mean a given subject will expect more unusual results than others.

PROBABILITY FOR ONE GIVEN PERSON TO EXPERIENCE A GIVEN NUMBER IS DUE TO HIS, AND HIS ROLLS ALONE.

To say otherwise is to assume that one guy who plays only 1 ticket a day will have greater chances to win the lottery the more poeple around him play.

Well now... let those 18000 people rolls the same set of dice and see what happens (which is what we are actually doing and that is what makes the things seem strange to people). Remember also that a probability is just that... it doesn't mean its a certainty. just because its extremely unlikely doesn't mean that it can't happen. Taking your lottery example... there are many people who buy hundreds of tickets only for a guy who bought one to win. Their increased "chance" didn't help much in such a situation. Randomness means that sometimes you will be screwed!

answer this.... you have just rolled 100 1's in a row. what is the probability that your next roll will be a 1?

The probability of my NEXT roll to be a 1 is 1/6

BUT he probability of getting 100 1´s in a row is not 1/6

The problem is that your sample size is too small. You are only looking at your own dice rolls, thinking that they are a closed set. They are not. They are tied into a larger dice sampling pool, that may very well, when examined in the aggregate, comply nicely with statistical probability.

Also, are you paying attention to how often you win the dice rolls? Often we only pay attention to the pain points.

Even if you play 50 game rounds a day, with maybe 10 dice rolls per round, that's only 500 dice rolls of what has to be millions of dice rolls per day. Since your rolls are not isolated, it's hard to determine a global set statistic based upon such a small and very localized sample size.

Ironically, this is very close to how political polls are done, and how they can often be wildly off target.

Also, if you really want to examine the results, you have to ignore "battle results", and only focus on "dice rolls" The dice roll engine will not be aware of situational issues, such as "3x1". The backend system simply will respond to a need for 4 dice rolls, and will generate and deliver 4 dice rolls. They would then be read and placed in order to determine result. The dice roll system is also unaware of the environmental factors that determine a "win" or "loss".

I found an interesting article at This Link that basically re-creates your complaint, but with the PSX version of Risk from Hasbro.

Calculated Probability

[spoiler=Probability]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 %)[/spoiler]

Conclusion: heads up with three dice versus 2 dice, the attacker has an advantage in the long run. Similar interpretations can be made for the remainder of the data, which can be summarized as follows:

* Attacker 1 versus defender 1: defender has the advantage, winning about 4 out of 7 battles
* Attacker 2 versus defender 1: attacker has the advantage, winning about 4 out of 7 battles
* Attacker 3 versus defender 1: attacker has the advantage, winning about 2 out of 3 battles
* Attacker 1 versus defender 2: defender has the advantage, winning about 3 out of 4 battles
* Attacker 2 versus defender 2: defender has the advantage, winning about 3 out of 5 battles
* Attacker 3 versus defender 2: attacker has the advantage, but the advantage is much more narrow than any of the battles described above. The attacker's advantage is such that he will win about 7 out of 13 battles on average.

Now his main result of the argument was there may be a bug in the RNG code for the Hasbro PSX version. My only two comments with regards to CC is this: 1) random.org's RNG code is likely superior and 2) playing local on a PSX has a order of magnitude smaller number of entities in the set than what is being generated here.

So, even though 3x1 should net 2 out of 3 wins, it won't necessarily relate to the statistically small number of times you execute it. Someone else might be getting 3x1 wins like crazy.

A single player can not likely generate a statistically relevant set size to sample from. you would have to be playing 1000's of game rounds a day. You would also have to be collecting all of the dice roll statistics perfectly.

Sometimes it's just Poker.

The true task, IMHO, is taking into account how the system works, and playing on a macro level with much more precision, not relying on luck rolls. You will get beat, but if you average over time too gameplay, it will result in a higher than average win rate.

RADAGA wrote:The probability of my NEXT roll to be a 1 is 1/6

BUT he probability of getting 100 1´s in a row is not 1/6

I never claimed it was. but that's the strange thing about probabilities. just because you had a series of bad rolls does not mean that the next must be good... that's how the random factor works. sure it screws your game sometimes.... but then everyone faces the same problem. learn to manage with it....Me when my dice go crazy I leave and come back

Have I rolled a million dice already since the last time i had SIX 3X1 LOSSES IN A ROW?

No? Funny....

A little more than 2 hours later, I just had a FOUR 3x1 loss in a row. Have I rolled hundreds of rolls, to meet yet another tail-of-the-curve result?

I dont think so...

you might find this interesting

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=98924

then again you might not...

RADAGA, you have 1/3 of the posts in this thread, yet nothing has ever changed. You don't listen to the people teaching you about math and probability, yet you're not convincing anyone that the site is broken. What are you hoping to gain by continuing to post in this thread? The only thing I can see is to get your post count up. Shit-dice happen. Get over it or leave are your only two options.

Night Strike wrote:RADAGA, you have 1/3 of the posts in this thread, yet nothing has ever changed. You don't listen to the people teaching you about math and probability, yet you're not convincing anyone that the site is broken. What are you hoping to gain by continuing to post in this thread? The only thing I can see is to get your post count up. Shit-dice happen. Get over it or leave are your only two options.

Really, complaining incessantly is an option. Not a good one, but it's there.

Game 5782042

I only made 1 conquest every round, every time going against a land with 1 army defending.

But I only have 2 armies defending each of my territories.

Why? Because before each and every conquest (round 7) the gods ruled that I must lose 1 or 2 armies for the 3x1 I am aiming at.

There is NO strategy that can best that

3v1 rolls:
- 3209 wins, 1635 losses
- (66.25% / 33.75%)

Theoretical odds: (65.97% / 34.03%)

The dice are fine, maybe if you go to church more often your luck will improve.