Streaky Dice Question

[musicalmaven]

ok radaga - let me play woodruff. that is the essence of random dice.
and he is right - and if you get these results just once a month, i want your irp, or whatever id number the computer uses to identify you.
if i could go one week without that kind of dice rolls, i'd be happier.

[donkeymile]

LOL - you don't know how much I want to agree musicalmaven .... I'd take that once a week in a heartbeat compared to what I normally get.

I was playing a game yesterday and my opponent (someone I play fairly regularily) asked me "how can you possibly be so unlucky." That was after I'd lost some incredible dice again and for about the 5th time in the first 6 rounds ... lol ( I laugh now but I wasn't then) .... he's used to seeing the insane dice I get, and probably one of the reasons he plays me too!!!!

Anyway ... radaga should count his blessings if THAT's the worse dice he gets is about all I really wanted to say ....

[musicalmaven]

to xenowollf - i can't help but wonder if you get good dice because of your positive attitude, or do you have a positive attitude because you get good dice.
either way - you've only been a member for a month and a half. donkeysmile has been a member for over 2 years, and i have been for over 4 years.
in my first year i noticed some terrible dice results, a felt like donkeysmile probably does, but as your new found buddy, jpreno, suggested, results like radaga and, presumably donkeysmile as well, are simple anecdotal comments and a true record should be kept to "scientifically" show a pattern.
i have done so for over 3 years and not only am still below average, in the 3 years i have kept these records - i have never been above average.
i have tried to get others to do so as well to prove the point, but i guess no one is as crazy as i am.
the dice analyzer may help prove the point, but i haven't seen anyone comment about negative results from the dice analyzer, except me (as of today 5 of the 6 categories are below average).
i would like a reasonable, logical explanation (that means no "that's randomness" from woodruff) how this is possible. either the numbers the are suppose to represent average are too high (and everything i have read indicates that against 2 defenders the attacker should win better than 53.9% of the time and against 1 defender the attacker should win at a rate better than 65.9% of the time) or something else is happening.
how's that for giving jpreno's third suggestion a run for it's money?

[Woodruff]

ok radaga - let me play woodruff. that is the essence of random dice.
and he is right - and if you get these results just once a month, i want your irp, or whatever id number the computer uses to identify you.
if i could go one week without that kind of dice rolls, i'd be happier.

The force is strong within you, padawan.

(Oh wait...I'm Spock...dammit.)

i would like a reasonable, logical explanation (that means no "that's randomness" from woodruff) how this is possible.

I know you hate this answer, but that really is the right answer. Again, "random" does not at all mean "uniform" or "falling within reasonable bounds" or "average". While it is exceptional that you've maintained that dismal dice record, it's not at all outside of the bounds of the possible...and it's even LIKELY that there are a FEW people in that boat (as well as the other side of that coin, being positive forever).

[natty dread]

What woodruff says is correct.

I would be more concerned if you were exactly on the predicted amounts.

Can you show me the dice analyzer results you have?

[canadian bacon]

Combat
Mohamed:
4
2
5
- vs -
Anthony:
6

Combat
Mohamed:
3
4
4
- vs -
Anthony:
6

Combat
Mohamed:
5
2
1
- vs -
Anthony:
5

Combat
Mohamed:
3
2
2
- vs -
Anthony:
5

Combat
Mohamed:
3
4
4
- vs -
Anthony:
5

Combat
Mohamed:
1
1
4
- vs -
Anthony:
6

Combat
Mohamed:
4
1
1
- vs -
Anthony:
2

This is VERY normal.... here, of course.... AGAIN I lost SIX 3x1 in a row.... I swear I did not rolled the THUSANDS of 3x1 needed to get the LOT I got of such results.

at least once in a month I see something like this. how can you plan for some strategy, if you get things like that once per month? I am not complainig about the average results, but those streaks are simply ridiculous. I have never seen someone lose six three-against-one with real dice.

especially considering defence dice being SIX, SIX, FIVE, FIVE, FIVE, SIX :/

risk has NEVER been solely straegy based. ever since they decied to have dice be the deciding factor luck has been just as big a factor as strategy.

as woodruff has said random is NOT uniform. it just means you have an equal oppertunity of rolling a 1 or a 6, and if you ever took a look at how the dice rolls are generated you'd see that it's the fairest random die generator out there.

[musicalmaven]

what is it with you guys and this "random" excuse? it's like a security blanket and you just won't let go of it.
first - natty. i have never said that the dice should always be exactly what the odds say they should be, nor have i ever said that streaks, both good and bad, aren't also a part of "random numbers". however, if one result is all you get, maybe there is a problem.
and as for your request for the dice analyzer results. i already did that on another "dice thread" and agreed with metsfan's declaration that the major numbers are within the general leeway of normal fluctuation, and the other 4 categories are "too small" of a sample for a true pattern to be discerned, so there is no reason to repeat that exercise. (and i also stated, in that other "dice thread" that since the introduction to intense dice, my dice results have improved.)
and now for woodruff - do you not see how illogically your statement is?
someone has, as his avatar a dilbert cartoon where the computer is constantly spewing out the number 9 and dilbert asks his pointy-haired boss if the computer is operating properly and the boss answers "it's random, so who really knows?"
if the answer is always the same, maybe it isn't random.
natty said he'd be more concerned if the numbers were always dead on the predicted percentages.
canadian bacon said "random is not uniform".
both are correct - random is not uniform, and if the results are uniform, maybe there is a problem. (and yes random could give the same result repeatedly, but not for a long time.)
you may be correct that there are others who are always in the negative and others who are always in the positive - but that should not be. simple randomness should not allow that (again, over the long haul).
back to canadian bacon - you're right risk has never been a purely strategic game, and i would say luck plays a bigger factor than strategy, and there is nothing wrong with that.
i would not know how to compare one die generator against another, so i will not go so far as to say ours is the best.
however, if i, and as woodruff suggests - others, are finding things less "fair" maybe you guys have to think outside the box and give us a break.
while some will always complain when anything goes wrong, there are still a number of us who are reasonably correct in our position that we are constantly getting the short stick when it comes to the dice
it is very frustrating to go years and always get screwed by the dice (not to mention the cards - oops, i shouldn't have mentioned the cards. do we have a separate thread for them?).
i mean - i must love the game to continually take this abuse, but in all the decades i've played the board game, i have never been this unlucky.
i do appreciate you guys discussing this maturely, and not insulting me because i am arguing against your position.
it has been my "pet" explanation of my continued lousy luck that the computer has designated a small percentage of players as "born losers" and they will always get screwed. the players to whom i given this explanation to, both those who are on your side and those who are on my side of the "argument, have all "laughed" saying they were sure that the computer couldn't, and isn't, doing this, and they are probably right - but, who knows, maybe number five is alive.

[Woodruff]

and now for woodruff - do you not see how illogically your statement is?
someone has, as his avatar a dilbert cartoon where the computer is constantly spewing out the number 9 and dilbert asks his pointy-haired boss if the computer is operating properly and the boss answers "it's random, so who really knows?"
if the answer is always the same, maybe it isn't random.
you may be correct that there are others who are always in the negative and others who are always in the positive - but that should not be. simple randomness should not allow that (again, over the long haul).

That last actually is an illogical statement. Truly, it implies a lack of understanding of the nature of randomality. Random is not "fair", in that it will never necessarily "even out" for EVERYONE...because that is impossible within a random system.

However, I do know this...our Tech Team has spent a lot of time and effort studying this issue and I do feel comfortable that they have implemented a system here that allows us as random of a situation as they are allowed to within the constraints that the webmaster has set.

i do appreciate you guys discussing this maturely, and not insulting me because i am arguing against your position.

You've been very reasonable about the issue, so I would hope I and others would be, as well.

[xenowolff]

@musicalraven- your right, i have only been a member for a month and a half. but ive been playing risk for almost 15 years. ( i remeber my first game was in december of 96) and i often wonder about my optimism myself- is it directly or indirectly getting me better roles? or is it that im more likely to over look bad rolls?

id also like to make a note of something: mathmatical averages NEVER directly represent life. they represent a 'perfect example' that life, and humans, generally cant replicate. and before we get into the 'but its a programmed dice generator' issue, some human programmed it, right? ive noticed (and some physisists speculate about it) that 'natural' averages can be up to twenty percent lower or higher than a regular average. thats how we get such a fluxuation.

and @radaga, those dice for your opponent really sucked for you, im sorry >_< not necessarily impossible, but really sucked.

[canadian bacon]

@musical maven woodruff covered that first part so i won't pick on you any more, i know what it's like getting the same lecture from six people....

as for your second point, as a D&D player who's average rolls on a 20 sider to be ~7 i can tell you that the "born loser" doesn't apply solely to computers.

[natty dread]

and before we get into the 'but its a programmed dice generator' issue,

I may be nitpicking here, but CC dice are not generated by a computer algorithm, they come from random.org which gets their random numbers by converting atmospheric noise into a binary stream.

[xenowolff]

however, who wrote the program that does this? it all comes back to our lack of randomness. then again, 'true random' is unobtainable period, even for nature. if a tree falls in the middle of a forest, there is a reason for it. there is a scientific reason for just about anything mundane, so 'true random' is truely unobtainable. even in a real game of risk, the dice roles are completely, one hundred percent controlled by physics. pardon if my spelling is poor, but ive been under the weather the past few days and its affecting my spelling/typing.

[Metsfanmax]

however, who wrote the program that does this? it all comes back to our lack of randomness. then again, 'true random' is unobtainable period, even for nature. if a tree falls in the middle of a forest, there is a reason for it. there is a scientific reason for just about anything mundane, so 'true random' is truely unobtainable. even in a real game of risk, the dice roles are completely, one hundred percent controlled by physics. pardon if my spelling is poor, but ive been under the weather the past few days and its affecting my spelling/typing.

And the laws of physics tell us explicitly that there is no way, even in principle, to actually predict the result of the roll of a die to an arbitrary degree of accuracy.

[RADAGA]

That last actually is an illogical statement. Truly, it implies a lack of understanding of the nature of randomality. Random is not "fair", in that it will never necessarily "even out" for EVERYONE...because that is impossible within a random system.

NOTHING is impossible in a true random system. You yourself dont understand it. You could get a streak of a million sixes in a row, in fact, you´re bound to get one, IF YOU ROLL LONG ENOUGH.

Thats the problem: here, in conquerclub, long enough is around a hundred rolls. While it should be more like once-in-several-lifetimes.

[natty dread]

NOTHING is impossible in a true random system. You yourself dont understand it. You could get a streak of a million sixes in a row, in fact, you´re bound to get one, IF YOU ROLL LONG ENOUGH.

Thats the problem: here, in conquerclub, long enough is around a hundred rolls. While it should be more like once-in-several-lifetimes.

The first part of your post is indeed correct.

The second part, though... in a random system, there is no "should". It's random, after all. I think you are also highly underestimating the frequency and length of streaks in a truly random system.

'true random' is truely unobtainable.

Not true.

[Woodruff]

That last actually is an illogical statement. Truly, it implies a lack of understanding of the nature of randomality. Random is not "fair", in that it will never necessarily "even out" for EVERYONE...because that is impossible within a random system.

NOTHING is impossible in a true random system. You yourself dont understand it.

No, I understand it quite well. I mis-spoke, and you're correct to point it out. But I do understand it.

Thats the problem: here, in conquerclub, long enough is around a hundred rolls. While it should be more like once-in-several-lifetimes.

A hundred rolls for only you? Or for everyone?

[RADAGA]

If I experience the oddities every hundred rolls I do, my universal results is what matter.

If I was watching A streak withing the whole site, everytime I roll a hundred rolls, I would be incorrect. But I am considering, withing MY rolls, which ones are statistical abnormalities. So, I dont care if the site rolled 100.000.000 times, and therefore some 11 3x1 losses were bound to happen, I am not searching for them in the 100.000.000 rolls. I am searching them within my 100, and finding them with unnerving frequency.

[musicalmaven]

i think radaga is coming close to the crux of the problem.
while almost anything may be possible within the realm of random - what everyone who is complaining is complaining about is it is happening to them - and too frequently.
obviously, the ones who are getting the good rolls (to balance out those of us who are getting the bad rolls) are not complaining - all's right in their world.
those of us who are getting the bad rolls, if i can believe what most of them write, are complaining about is that they come with alarming frequency.
maybe if they all up-load the dice analyzer they will have documented proof of their claim.
they could also go the crazy route, as i have, and keep a record of all their results.
but, giving them the benefit of the doubt - those of us who are constantly on the short side of the dice want some relieve.
woodruff constantly cloaks himself with the "anything is possible in a random system" defense, including, as he has pointed out, even having players who never see the plus side of the dice.
while this maybe possible, and i only grudgingly concede it, the pure joy of playing (or even gambling) and knowing you can never get above average is extremely frustrating and leads some to over-state their position, which leads to woodruff et al to insult their posts.
however there is a problem with any system that keeps a percentage of the participants from rising from the depths.
if anything is possible, then there should be some method to resolve the problem.

[Funkyterrance]

Musical, I like the cut of your jib but you can't leave us hanging man! What do you suggest???

[SirSebstar]

If I experience the oddities every hundred rolls I do, my universal results is what matter.

If I was watching A streak withing the whole site, everytime I roll a hundred rolls, I would be incorrect. But I am considering, withing MY rolls, which ones are statistical abnormalities. So, I dont care if the site rolled 100.000.000 times, and therefore some 11 3x1 losses were bound to happen, I am not searching for them in the 100.000.000 rolls. I am searching them within my 100, and finding them with unnerving frequency.

just fyi, but statisticly i think you should loose 50% of your 3-1 rolls, so often is about right

[patrickaa317]

If I experience the oddities every hundred rolls I do, my universal results is what matter.

If I was watching A streak withing the whole site, everytime I roll a hundred rolls, I would be incorrect. But I am considering, withing MY rolls, which ones are statistical abnormalities. So, I dont care if the site rolled 100.000.000 times, and therefore some 11 3x1 losses were bound to happen, I am not searching for them in the 100.000.000 rolls. I am searching them within my 100, and finding them with unnerving frequency.

just fyi, but statisticly i think you should loose 50% of your 3-1 rolls, so often is about right

Sebstar - Statistically if you are talking 3 dice to 1 dice, it is a 65% chance that you'll win; If you are talking 2 dice to 1 dice, it is 58% chance that you'll win.

RADAGA - your 100 rolls is a very small sample size. If I was to flip a coin 10 times, it wouldn't be completely abnormal to have 7 heads & only 3 tails. If I flipped a coin 1,000,000,000 times and had 700,000,000 heads and 300,000,000 tails; even though the percentages are the same that would be very abnormal.

[SirSebstar]

oh yea. i read 3-1 as 2-1.. oopsie.
But still 4-1 at 65% thats about 1 in every 3 attacks you will loose. still quite often

[RADAGA]

Yes, but I am not complaining about losing the odd 4x1 attack, but lose them one after the other in a chain

I just did a tournment round (and I am out of the tournment because of that) I went with 32 armies to kill my opponent, who had 17 held-by-one territories.

well, I managed to conquer seven, only, because every attack was like that "lose, lose, win"

that gave a 66% result for the 3(dice)x1(die) attacks in that round.

the other one I posted above, I lost seven in sequence. thats not 35% chance.. thats (0,35^7)*100 percent, a VERY VERY VERY low chance to happen scenario.

= 0,064% thats means we should find only 64 of those in every 100.000 rolls, statistically speaking. But the "it´s random" blanket protect anywone who have no intention of checking, since "all is well in Versailles, no matter how many starve in Paris" Those in the Palace cares nothing about us, the people.

[SirSebstar]

if you throw a dice, do you expect the side to show up to be different from what you threw before?
.
.
.
why?, because the side has 6 sides, so there is always a 1/6 chance...
.
random really means random, and sometimes that is just streaky, but still unpredictable..

[patrickaa317]

Yes, but I am not complaining about losing the odd 4x1 attack, but lose them one after the other in a chain

I just did a tournment round (and I am out of the tournment because of that) I went with 32 armies to kill my opponent, who had 17 held-by-one territories.

well, I managed to conquer seven, only, because every attack was like that "lose, lose, win"

that gave a 66% result for the 3(dice)x1(die) attacks in that round.

the other one I posted above, I lost seven in sequence. thats not 35% chance.. thats (0,35^7)*100 percent, a VERY VERY VERY low chance to happen scenario.

= 0,064% thats means we should find only 64 of those in every 100.000 rolls, statistically speaking. But the "it´s random" blanket protect anywone who have no intention of checking, since "all is well in Versailles, no matter how many starve in Paris" Those in the Palace cares nothing about us, the people.

Sit down tonight with 5 dice and a sheet of paper. 3 white dice and 2 black dice (or some other way of deciphering attacking vs defending dice).

On the sheet of paper, make three columns. Name these: "Dice" "Same" "Conquer"

Everytime you click "Attack" in Conquer Club, roll the same amount of dice in real life. On the sheet of paper, mark whether the outcome of the real dice or the conquer club dice were better; if they had the same outcome; then mark "same". After you do this 100 times, check to see if the conquer club dice are truly screwing you. If it is pretty close; do it for another 100 times.