How can I avoid the game being rigged?

[SirSebstar]

"are attacked" jefjef. if your style with words was as good as your math skills, you would have known. Or then again, maybe not.

bottom line, yours is only a very slight deviation from what can be expected. 1 dice per 1000 means the 999 times you can expect to roll as many 6's as 1's ect.. pretty much obvious, yes?!

[jefjef]

"are attacked" jefjef. if your style with words was as good as your math skills, you would have known. Or then again, maybe not.

bottom line, yours is only a very slight deviation from what can be expected. 1 dice per 1000 means the 999 times you can expect to roll as many 6's as 1's ect.. pretty much obvious, yes?!

Thank cook for your insight! You do realize that "slight" variances, like .1 %, are very large when dealing with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of rolls in a game of chance like this - don't you? Or then again, pretty much obvious you don't.

[SirSebstar]

with thousands upon thousands i would assume the experimental probability would approach the theoretical probability. Approach. not equal. this was already stated by another writer.
Also, i said that your dice differenciated LESS then 0.1 percent. Considering the worst case, thats about 100 per 100k. Oeps i noticed i said its 1 in 1000 where it should be 1 in 10.000
You have to know that 0.1 is the smallest degree it can give? so its likely to be an even smaller number...

again, your sample of 100k dicerolls is not that large, LESS then one in 10k dice deviation should be... within the norm

[Just_essence]

I've also seen a defender roll five consecutive 6's. Destroyed all of my troops from spoils, but that's life. It's like trying to invade Switzerland.

[ebt1972]

It's like trying to invade Switzerland.

Ultimately disappointing when you discover your loot is just clocks and chocs?

[Just_essence]

No. Just almost impossible to do.

[SirSebstar]

actually the swiss main defense is not that it is impossible to do, quite the reverse. they have a very smal standing army.
In fact they enourage local resistance, making it increasingly taxing and difficult to hold

[Just_essence]

Guerilla warfare is the currently undefeated strategy that has yet to have a regularly effective counter.
And besides, no one in the world sees any point in conquering Switzerland. It's a nice place. You don't disturb it. It doesn't disturb you. Except maybe with patents and banking.

[shadistic]

"are attacked" jefjef. if your style with words was as good as your math skills, you would have known. Or then again, maybe not.

bottom line, yours is only a very slight deviation from what can be expected. 1 dice per 1000 means the 999 times you can expect to roll as many 6's as 1's ect.. pretty much obvious, yes?!

Thank cook for your insight! You do realize that "slight" variances, like .1 %, are very large when dealing with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of rolls in a game of chance like this - don't you? Or then again, pretty much obvious you don't.

Oh man... IF those couple hundred rolls were all to happen consecutively, it'd be your worst couple games ever.

[SirSebstar]

pfff go for city mogol and you have a chance to recover... maybe...

[Stevinator]

Its rigged! I have just seen way too many unbelievable outcomes. I teach physics, and I do know a little about probability, and these dice aint normal! Have written many times about it as well. I had six staright weeks of negative dice stats already...never ever in the positive direction that long. Multiple games in which I can never take 2 on the attack...best being 1 on 1. I lost 17 armies once to 6 attacking, and I was spread over 5 terts. They responded and said that there would be no reason to have it rigged...my best guess...they don't want guys moving through the ranks too quickly.

[SirSebstar]

Its rigged! I have just seen way too many unbelievable outcomes. I teach physics, and I do know a little about probability, and these dice aint normal! Have written many times about it as well. I had six staright weeks of negative dice stats already...never ever in the positive direction that long. Multiple games in which I can never take 2 on the attack...best being 1 on 1. I lost 17 armies once to 6 attacking, and I was spread over 5 terts. They responded and said that there would be no reason to have it rigged...my best guess...they don't want guys moving through the ranks too quickly.

rofl

[Stevinator]

Sirsebstar, do you even know what that means lol? I'm certainly not bragging with my comment...I was explaining how poorly I was doing. Isn't that the opposite? Also, I'm just stating what I've seen. I've never had the positive ups that I have the negative downs. Sure, you should absolutely see negative trends, but I've had times in which I wasn't winning any rolls over multiple multiple games. That's just not very likely. Especially, as often as I've seen it happen. Now...you're entitled to your opinion...but when you become a dick...that makes you a problem for me. So, when you are ready for a little one on one...you let me know.

[SirSebstar]

Dear Stevinator. You call yourself a teacher. You use an IP adres from the USA. But even my English is less worse then yours.
You state you know something about statistics, but then you blatently show your disregard for just about any basic point of well basicly any math education.
Compare your stats to mine. Your dice are better then your opponants, mine are actually worse. A sample size of 17-6 lost is actually something you should see on a daily basis. What you mean with 5 terits, I have no clue.

in short, i found your post to be hilariously sarcastic. Sadly it did not turn out that way.
Please consider this on the subject of the cubes. If they are rigged, someone should profit from them. If they are not rigged, but predictable, again someone should be smart enough to use it to their advantage. I known nobody who makes a claim like that and/or was able to substantiate it.

A common fallacy like your statement is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_ga ... 7s_fallacy , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_conceit and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
They basicly state what is happening in your head. You see patterns where there are none, and you will remember bad results more then good results, but just based on objective numbers, your dice are above average, therefor you have had more luck then you were supposed to.

Now i am perfectly willing to go head to head with you. I have no problem with that. Just the question, what will it prove if i beat you? Will it prove i have better dice, or that you have worse? Neither is helping me ofcourse
Is there a setting you particularely like then send me a pm and ill reply

[Fewnix]

FANTASTIC DISCUSSION!! WELL DONE CC!!


here is one of the best posts I have ever seen on this much discussed topic.

Here's my brief attempt to explain why it seems like the dice are stacked against us:

There's a 1.1% chance of losing 12v3, but it seems to happen about once a week, right? This makes sense because we're all making hundreds of similar attacks per week. We're bound to have a big loss like that every once in a while.

Meanwhile, the odds of winning 5v13 are similarly 1.1%, yet a miracle like that never seems to happen. It's simply because we never attempt attacks like this. If we tried as many underdog attacks as we try big vs small attacks, we'd win against big odds as often as we lose against them.

So, even though the theoretical odds are always fair, the practical odds (actual occurrences/turns taken) of losing big are much higher than for winning big, because of how we play the game.

The conclusion? Even though its annoying when people say the dice odds are against us, there's a weird truth behind what they're saying.

A

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=183456

Board index ‹ Information ‹ Strategy -Dice Psychology

[SirSebstar]

insightfull thanks for the post

[EricPhail]

You may also want to consider that every time you lose a 12 v 3 on the attack, the defender has got that lucky swing but not only is he less likely to remeber it, there's also a chance he effectively doesn't see it at all (all he sees is a depleted stack next to a depleted stack)

As I write this my split is as follows: 3v2 58.7%, 3v1 35.1%, 2v2 1.3%, 2v1 2.3%, 1v2 0.9%, 1v1 1.5%
(amusingly I had made precisely 2000 3v2s when I wrote this)