Question about dice...

[KLOBBER]

An imaginary possibility of a problem is a completely different thing from an existent problem, and actually, I concede freely and without reservation that there is a "possibility" of a problem with the dice.

However, until evidence of an actual problem is presented, which has never been done, every intelligent, logical, or scientific mind must accept the fact that the dice are absolutely perfect as they are. In this case, since they are designed to be unpredictable, and they are indeed unpredictable, the obvious definition of the term "perfect" as applies to the dice is simply "unpredictable." In other words, the only conceivable problem with the dice would be a proven citation of consistent predictability having bearing on the outcome of any games, which is something that has simply NEVER been cited.

In fact, every single dice complaint that I have ever seen has piled on fresh evidence of total, unfailing, unrelenting, absolutely perfect UNPREDICTABILITY. The dice complainers crowd is so backward in their thinking that they actually volunteer, time and time again, air-tight evidence in direct contradiction of their own ridiculous theories! If you have seen as much as a single dice complaint at any time that cites any evidence of a consistent occurrence of predictability (beyond the fact that it will be a number between 1 and 6, inclusive), which has an actual bearing on the outcome of any games, please point it out to me, and I guarantee that I will give you 5,000.00 USD. Or, if you can set up a situation where you prove to me that you or anyone else can consistently predict the dice in a manner that has any bearing on the outcome of any games, I'll guarantee the same amount. If anyone accepts this challenge and fails to provide the evidence, then that person owes me $5,000.00.

I have placed this guarantee in writing, it is a challenge that I have offered before on this site, and I continue to offer it to any and all dice complainers willing to meet my challenge at the same monetary level. If you complainers had any credibility, then it should be easy money, right? Still, no evidence has ever been presented -- not ever. I am placing all my cards on the table, and I am showing how confident I am in my statements regarding the unpredictability of the dice. Are you willing to meet this same level of confidence in your theory? Please let me know, because I would love to pocket your money.

I cannot predict them, and you cannot predict them -- nobody can predict them, and nobody ever will be able to predict them. So far, all dice complainers shoot blanks without exception. Face it: unpredictability is the ONLY real function of the dice, and they function perfectly.

Got $5,000.00 to spare? Either put your money where your mouth is, or shut it!

All your BS aside, unpredictability is what it all boils down to, and as no complainer has ever been able to prove that he, or anyone else, can consistently predict the dice in a manner having any bearing on the outcome of any games, all of their complaints are 100% bogus, and the conclusion is that the CC dice are perfect.

[xelabale]

Not perfect - they should go back to hearts - that would be perfect, sigh....

[KLOBBER]

Not perfect - they should go back to hearts - that would be perfect, sigh....

I agree, those hearts were cool!

[ppgangster]

Not perfect - they should go back to hearts - that would be perfect, sigh....

I agree, those hearts were cool!

They were the coolest thing here in a while on CC!!!

[KLOBBER]

You got that right!

Any other design that actually looks good would be preferable to the present ones.

They just don't look good.

[xelabale]

Klobber, do you only deal in certainties? You post opinions as fact! Or are you always right?

PS Can I borrow $5,000? I'll pay you back next week...

[lordhaha]

Had a 64 v 17 and lost, ending up 1 v 5 (That really sucks)....now as for the prediction I can predict that every time I get a dice like this I will log out and log in again to make sure I have not had to much to drink, then 1. smash the keyboard 2. Hit my head off the table 3. Give my missus a grunt when she happily strides in and asks me how my evening was.

Now there is 3 predictions of dice outcomes klobber

[KLOBBER]

LOL!

You get points for being funny, but that's not a prediction of dice outcomes, it's predictions of your own behavior.

Any other takers?

[maniacmath17]

Well at least you admitted to the possibility of problems with the dice, that was more than I was expecting, lol.

As for the goal of the dice, you are wrong KLOBBER. I'm sure Lack can confirm this, but the goal of the dice is to be random not just unpredictable. I hope you can understand the difference between random and unpredictable. Unpredictable simply means no one can predict whether a 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 will be rolled. Random means not only can you not predict the outcome, but there is an exactly equal chance of rolling a 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 on any given roll.

All I'm suggesting, is that if the dice were truly random, then we wouldn't see this many extremely unlikely losses. And since we have confirmed an equal number of 1's through 6's have been rolled, the only way to have these losses is if there is some inherent streakyness within the dice.

[KLOBBER]

Well, the "possibility" of a problem that I agreed upon with you has yet to be proven as an actual problem. Rather than skirting the real issue altogether, would you care to get to the heart of the matter and make an attempt at citing an example of consistent predictability that has bearing on the outcome of any games? No, I thought not. Until you or anyone else cites an actual ability to consistently predict the dice, there has been absolutely no real problem reported. The dice are perfect.

Also, the dice are by no means "random." In reality, it is impossible to generate a string of truly "random" numbers. Even the most advanced computers in the world cannot do so, never have been able to do so, and never will be able to do so. There is never an equal "chance" for any given set or number to be chosen, neither in the natural world, nor in programming. Choice ALWAYS implies will and intelligence, and intelligence is ALWAYS manifesting a plan and a design (some predictable, and others unpredictable). Whichever set or number is chosen, in each instance, is 100% likely to be chosen, and all the others are zero. The arbitrarily concocted phrase, "equal chance" is nothing but imaginary nonsense, and has no bearing on reality.

The best that any computer program can come up with is actually never random in the least bit. If you take 100 computers and plug in the same data, whatever that data may be, and subject that data to the same program for supposedly "random" generation, and look at the outputs, you will have 100 exactly identical strings of numbers. Such a string may be unpredictable to some people, but the programmer may very well be able to predict the outcome for future trials. In this example, each number that each of the hundred computers outputs is 100% likely to come out of each of those hundred computers, and all other numbers are at zero, as I stated above. This fact can be verified by asking any computer programmer. Most "random" number generators are based on the internal clock, and so these strings are by no means random. CC's dice patterns are based on atmospheric noise, but the principle still applies: each number that manifests is 100% likely to manifest at the particular time that it manifests, and the other five numbers are 0% likely to manifest at that time.

We can at least agree that the dice are not random: that is an obvious fact.

The dice are, however, unpredictable, and I'm sure that the designers had this goal in mind when they designed them, whether they used the term unpredictable or not. (Using the term "random" when one means unpredictable is a common grammatical error, especially among techies).

My challenge stands. Care to take me up on it?

In my opinion, half the problem with the dice complainers is that the site insists on using the term "random," when what they actually mean is "unpredictable." This is a red herring that the unintelligent latch onto, and then become chronic dice complainers.

I feel that the CC Administrators would save themselves a lot of useless space with dice complaint threads if they were to switch over to the more accurate term, "unpredictable." My opinion on that particular error doesn't matter, though, as the terminology they use is their choice.

[maniacmath17]

Basically everything you just said is incorrect. Your "challenge" is pointless because no one is trying to claim here that they can predict the dice. Because as we all know they are unpredictable.

And my definition of random is precisely the correct definition. I went ahead and looked it up for you at dictionary.com:
ran⋅dom
   /ˈrændəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ran-duhm] Show IPA
–adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.


As for computers not being able to generate a string of random numbers, that's completely false as well. My calculator I have with me at the moment has a random number generator, and in the basic programming course I took, one of the first things we learned was how to generate random numbers.

You just said in your post that you admit the dice aren't random and that's exactly what I'm trying to say as well. But as most of conquer club's members will agree, the goal should be to make them random.

[KLOBBER]

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!

Simply stating that "everything" I said is incorrect without bothering to make any attempt at disproving any of it is truly ridiculous. Your opinion is insistent, definitely, but all you have is an opinion on all these issues. I cited facts backed by numerous examples, to which you simply turned a blind eye. That is supremely unscientific and illogical, and shows quite clearly that you have no idea what you're talking about tand that your credibility is zero. It also shows that you have no viable refutations to any of the facts that I posted.

Okay, so if the dice are unpredictable, as you admitted, then what exactly is the problem, in your opinion? Would you rather have them be predictable? That won't ever happen, as it would be unfair. Actually, everything that I stated is irrefutable fact.

It is impossible to generate random numbers, and anyone with a true grasp of programming knows this to be a fact.

In reality, the number strings that your calculator produces are most definitely according to a plan and a design (the ones produced by the original programmer), and according to the definition of the term, are therefore not "random" in the least bit. Prove that those number strings are random, and you may have some credibility -- at this point you have none.

You cannot, and you will never be able to do so.

[maniacmath17]

The problem is that the dice aren't RANDOM. Do you agree that attackers have the advantage in the game of risk? Well if you do, then you're basing that on the assumption that we have random dice. It is EXTREMELY important that the dice be random so that attack plans can be made and the chances of these attacks being successful can be calculated.

Obviously computers can't sit there and roll dice, so they must create some sort of formula to generate the numbers. All that is needed for these numbers to be random is:
1. Numbers can't be predicted
2. Each number in the set has an equal chance of occurring

As for strings of numbers being random, there's no way of proving with 100% certainty that any string is random. But here's the process for being 95% sure: Create a distribution of the numbers generated, calculate a 95% confidence interval (take a statistics class to learn how to do this). If all the results fall within that interval then you can say with 95% certainty that the numbers are random.

As for the facts thing, I just went to dictionary.com to dispute your claim that my definition of random was false. That's already more research than you've done on this thread.

[KLOBBER]

...there's no way of proving with 100% certainty that any string is random. But here's the process for being 95% sure....

The dice are not random; on this we agree.

I disagree with your strange and unbacked opinion that this is a problem, however. Try to prove that it is a problem, please: How exactly does this supposed "problem" affect the games? Does it give any player an advantage by being able to predict the dice?

-- If so, then you need to provide the evidence.

-- If not, then you have as yet to cite a real problem.

Which is it?

You admit that you cannot prove that your calculator manifests random number strings, and that admission directly contradicts the incorrect opinion on that subject that you stated earlier, while confirming the irrefutable fact that I stated -- that your calculator is incapable of manifesting any random numbers. I stated that the strings that your calculator produces are according to a definite plan, which proves without a doubt that they are not random at all, and you admit that you have no proof to the contrary. You are employing "scissor logic," which is not logic at all. It is simply bull-headedness and the inability to apprehend the fact that you are incorrect and have been proven incorrect without any hope of refutation.

"95%" is by no means acceptable proof in any truly scientific or logical circle. Do you even realize how ridiculous your ideas sound at this point? This "95%" statement is nothing but word jugglery in a vain attempt to turn around your utter logical defeat. Actually, you are not 95% correct, you are closer to 0% correct on the issue of computer-generated random number strings. They are an absolute myth, and you have offered no viable evidence to the contrary.

My statements are 100% fact, and the best you can come up with is that you admit that you cannot prove it, but you're pretty sure it's 95%. That is a total cop-out, and is ludicrous and laughable. I say that your method is closer to 5%, not 95%, and you also cannot prove me wrong on that. In any case, your method falls below scientific and logical standards for accepting statements as facts, which are 100%, not 95%, not 30%, not 5%, and not 0%.

You are shooting blanks.

The conclusion is that the dice are perfect, and you have failed, time and time again, to produce any evidence of a real problem, just as all dice complainers have always failed.

[maniacmath17]

Lol, forget I tried to explain 95% confidence intervals. The point i was making was that no string can ever be proven with 100% certainty that it is random. Instead, one must look at the source to determine that. It is 100% obvious that you have never in your life taken a statistics class so I'll not speak on this matter any further.

We've gotten to the important point which is the dice aren't random. Now I'll try to explain WHY this is a problem.

Random dice give the game more strategy. Lets say you are in a standard sequential escalating game and have the possibility of eliminating someone. You want to know what are the chances that you can eliminate that person. So you go to http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/Gambit/BattleOdds and type in the situation. It will give you a % chance that your attack will be successful and you can use this % to decide on whether or not the attack is worth it.

This calculation can ONLY be made with random dice. Otherwise, the game is just you at a computer with your fingers crossed hoping your stack can come out victorius, where's the strategy in that?

[KLOBBER]

Lol, forget I tried to explain 95% confidence intervals. The point i was making was that no string can ever be proven with 100% certainty that it is random. Instead, one must look at the source to determine that. It is 100% obvious that you have never in your life taken a statistics class so I'll not speak on this matter any further.

We've gotten to the important point which is the dice aren't random. Now I'll try to explain WHY this is a problem.

Random dice give the game more strategy. Lets say you are in a standard sequential escalating game and have the possibility of eliminating someone. You want to know what are the chances that you can eliminate that person. So you go to http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/Gambit/BattleOdds and type in the situation. It will give you a % chance that your attack will be successful and you can use this % to decide on whether or not the attack is worth it.

This calculation can ONLY be made with random dice. Otherwise, the game is just you at a computer with your fingers crossed hoping your stack can come out victorius, where's the strategy in that?

There is a very good reason why you cannot prove that any string is random, and that is that no string anywhere is random. Real science necessarily includes proof, and the very idea of randomness is 100% unproven, and is 100% unscientific nonsense, existing only in the imaginations of the unintelligent. I have taken and taught statistics courses, and so you are as wrong about that as you are about random numbers.

I agree that you must look at the source to determine whether or not something is truly random, and the fact is that there is NEVER any source that is random -- all sources for all attempts at random number generation are according to one plan or another, one design or another, and planning and design are by definition diametrically opposed to the very definition of randomness. Therefore, there is never any truly random string of numbers, anywhere

The picture you paint of sitting at your computer with your fingers crossed hoping that you are victorious comes from your own experience, no doubt. Your above post finally makes clear the exact nature of your beef with the CC dice: that you can't use your little cheat program to beat other players. Since the dice are unpredictable, you will NEVER know the "chances" beforehand, under any circumstances, and neither will anyone else. ...and guess what? The dice designers WANTED IT THAT WAY.

They successfully thwarted your attempt to predict the dice before you even came along. You are always going to be incorrect in any arbitrary prediction you may ever make about the dice, and so is your little cheat program. Bravo to the dice designers!

In the ultimate analysis, this entire conversation is nothing more than yet another citation of clear and irrefutable evidence that the CC dice are absolutely perfect as they are. Thank you for helping to show, just like every other dice complainer has shown, that the dice are indeed unpredictable, and are indeed perfect. You've been very helpful, and I really appreciate it.

...finis.

[Timminz]

I can make a prediction regarding the "dice" that will be true, every time.

I predict that I will roll a 6 today (it's 8:56 PM right now).

I will return when my prediction has happened.

[Timminz]

I will return when my prediction has happened.

And, I'm back.

[john9blue]

I will return when my prediction has happened.

And, I'm back.

Amazing!

Can you tell me the winning Powerball numbers for next week?

[necooley5]

I've got to say to those naysayers who support the dice rolling in this game as being anything but adequate and fair..,..bull****. Statistics class or not you have to look at the probabilities of rolling each number AND frequently in MY case rolling nothing but one's and two's over and over. IF this was HIGHLY probable I should immediately head to Vegas and sit my butt down at a craps table and immediately win a fortune. NOW, I will have to agree that the dice are VERY unpredictable.....you never know how they are going to roll....64 vs 5 and lose or 5 vs 5 and win without losing at all. You have about a 15% chance of rolling one of the numbers on any one roll (say 6). Now you have about a 30% chance of rolling the same number consecutively. The computer has no problem rolling two 6's time and time again. UUUMMMM..

[maniacmath17]

Since the dice are unpredictable, you will NEVER know the "chances" beforehand, under any circumstances, and neither will anyone else. ...and guess what? The dice designers WANTED IT THAT WAY.

Perfect. Now this is something we can actually try figure out. I believe that in order to have a more strategical game, it is necessary that the odds of winning a certain attack should be calculable, and available to anyone. You believe this is not the case, and that the designers wanted it this way. All we need now is one of the designers of the site to settle this once and for all.

Do the designers of the site want dice such that the odds on the outcome of an attack can be calculated? Yes or No. I set up a poll in case we don't get an official word from a designer.

[demonfork]

Random is synonymous with unpredictable.

The dice here will never be random or unpredictable (unless quantum randomness is used).

All classical (non-quantum) "random" number generators are deterministic and therefore by definition are predictable.

[KLOBBER]

Random is synonymous with unpredictable.

That is incorrect.

Many things are unpredictable and yet non-random.

A winning boxer's punch patterns, for example, are unpredictable by design, and design is by definition incompatible with "randomness." This is only one example, but the world is abounding with innumerable such examples of systems that are both unpredictable and non-random. The CC dice also fit the bill.

[xelabale]

Since the dice are unpredictable, you will NEVER know the "chances" beforehand, under any circumstances, and neither will anyone else. ...and guess what? The dice designers WANTED IT THAT WAY.

This shows the basic lack of understanding you are bringing to the dicussion. You seriously don't get probability if you believe this statement.

if i roll 1 dice i know EXACTLY the chances of rolling a 6 - 1/6. This is exactly true and verifiable. There is NO doubt about this - it is a fact. Doesn't mean it will happen that way, but that is the chance of it happening. Exactly 1/6. Exactly. No different. i know EXACTLY the chance. i can prove it to be so.

i repeat myself so you have time to absorb it Klobber, as i know you can sometimes start typing before you start thinking. STOP! Read this:

if i roll 1 dice i know EXACTLY the chances of rolling a 6 - 1/6. This is exactly true and verifiable. There is NO doubt about this - it is a fact. Doesn't mean it will happen that way, but that is the chance of it happening. Exactly 1/6. Exactly. No different. i know EXACTLY the chance. i can prove it to be so.

Got it?

Carry on...

[tyche73]

this is my actual stats for 2v2 no changes were made
actual ideal
(5.88% / 52.94% / 41.18%) (22.76% / 32.41% / 44.83%)

nothing random about that it's total s$!t
can anyone beat that nearly 6%