Streaky Dice Question

[Georgerx7di]

9 more pages of dice discussion. Might as well just watch tv.

[natty dread]

of course>

Hello, mister.

Concerning the dice, I think they might be displaying a behavior very different from what you would get with real dice.

Don´t you think your numbers wield far too many streaks in a row to be considered random? I am a ConquerClub user, they use your numbers and claim them to be perfect. But the number of times we find strange things with the results is amazing.

I mean, look at the dice roll, it is HARD to find a roll without repeated numbers.

You rolled 5 dice: a double

5 6 6 3 1

[...]


How can we trust it, if every time we get the die roller, it shows results that "are possible" but "should happen once every many rolls", not on "every other" roll


on those 30 dice, for instance, I´ve seen only one FOUR.. ....one four in 30 rolls ... where it should be something around five.

but I got 10 sixes .. 33,3% of the dice.


Try yourself, it happens every time.


Thanks for your time.


André

Ok, let's try to clear up some gross misunderstandings here.

Firstly, CC gets the dice numbers from Random.org. Random.org's service contract is not with CC, but with lackattack (rather, with the guy known as "lackattack" to us) and random.org does not concern themselves with what those numbers are used for, they're not responsible of the numbers after they leave their site and are used by another site (in this case CC) therefore it's understandable that they will not answer to queries like that.

Again, just so we're clear: Random.org does not have a contract with "ConquerClub", so they have no reason to know what ConquerClub is.

Then, let's look into the inherent fallacies of your email...

Don´t you think your numbers wield far too many streaks in a row to be considered random?

First of all, I suggest you read this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=138002&start=0&hilit=radiojake

See:

For example, when the iPod first came out and people started to use the shuffle feature, which plays songs in a random order, many people complained that it didn't work. They said that too often songs from the same album, or the same artist, came up one after another. Yet that's what randomness does - it creates counter-intuitively dense clusters. In response to complaints from users, Apple CEO Stever Jobs changed the programming behind the feature: "We're making it [the shuffle] less random to make it feel more random." In other words, each new song now has to be significantly different from what came before, so as to conform to our expectation or randomness. Which isn't really random at all......

So when you're saying "it has too many streaks so it can't be random" it's fallacious because streaks are exactly what you should expect from random numbers.

How can we trust it, if every time we get the die roller, it shows results that "are possible" but "should happen once every many rolls"

Another fallacy. Random means that previous results do not affect the next result. It's totally unpredictable. When people speak of probabilities within random, they mean that in the long run, when the number of rolls gets closer to infinity, the distribution of numbers gets closer to expected.

Read this too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Glad to be of service.

[SirSebstar]

First of radaga, thank you for supplying the original mail with your request.

I am going to quote what i think is relevant first.

......... I am a ConquerClub user, they use your numbers .....

coupled with

"I have no idea who ConquerClub is and I have no commitment to them to reply to their users' emails

okay so you gave little identification as to their supposed customer base and they don't know you at all. I know If i were a compagny I would give no information about my users at all, unless i was paid to do so.
That aside, since its hard to know who is conquerclub, i do not think conquerclub signs their checks, its more likely to be a person OR like it said on the bottom of every page on CC : Salamander Software. I havae to admit, i dont really know for sure out of the top of my head, but I think i can look it up if you want.

I value to reply to be reasonable. they do not know you, and conquerclub does not really ring a bell. Also your question is really not clear at all.
maybe we should try this again? Before you do so, please read up on the FAQ and statistics of random.org. As a few posters have done before you,it shows why it is the best randomness we can afford at the moment.

Also, try to remember that randomness does NOT take into account the previous throw. just throw 1000 dice, if you get nearly no strings of the same number, then you are throwing the dice as a true pro...

[RADAGA]

All of this would habe been perfectly sweet, if, in my email, I had not used one of RANDOM.ORG "dice" simulators

Those results were not from Conquerclub, I was questioning THEIR results, as provided by their own home page.

Even then, they decided it was safer to attack and claim they "dont have to answer" than to defend their own data.

As per they are not responsibles, thats BS, they ARE, once they make claims like "dice is truly random" Example: I work for the government, and they decide they will sort out one inhabitant to receive their tax back, based on random dice tosses. So, If I buy random.org dice, and use them to choose who shall receive a the money back, if their data is proven flawed or biased, they WILL be held responsible for me issueing the prize to the wrong kind of people.

The rest of the claims are simple "yadda, wadda, it is random, thats why there are only prime numbers in the 1.000.000 natural integers generated randomly data output file, thats what random is about- getting results that look entirelly not random, every single time"

"That sample over there? What do you mean it is flawed because the numbers are 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 picked from a random choice of numbers between 1 and 10.000? The fact there is only ONE number in the sample proves it is random!!!"

[SirSebstar]

LOL.
I cannot find your posts anything but funny. Stressfull but funny..

[natty dread]

Seriously. It's like talking to a brick wall with these guys.

[SirSebstar]

try reading this again: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiment ... stics.html

Experiments and Expectations

Performing an experiment amounts to asking the Universe a question. For the answer, the experimental results, to be of any use, you have to be absolutely sure you've phrased the question correctly. When searching for elusive effects among a sea of random events by statistical means, whether in particle physics or parapsychology, one must take care to apply statistics properly to the events being studied. Misinterpreting genuine experimental results yields errors just as serious as those due to faults in the design of the experiment.

Evidence for the existence of a phenomenon must be significant, persistent, and consistent. Statistical analysis can never entirely rule out the possibility that the results of an experiment were entirely due to chance—it can only calculate the probability of occurrence by chance. Only as more and more experiments are performed, which reproduce the supposed effect and, by doing so, further decrease the probability of chance, does the evidence for the effect become persuasive.

To show how essential it is to ask the right question, consider an experiment in which the subject attempts to influence a device which generates random digits from 0 to 9 so that more nines are generated than expected by chance. Each experiment involves generation of one thousand random digits. We run the first experiment and get the following result:

51866599999944246273322297520235159670265786865762
83920280286669261956417760577150505375232340788171
46551582885930322064856497482202377988394190796683
36456436836261696793837370744918197880364326675561
63557778635028561881986962010589509079505189756148
71722255387675577937985730026325400514696800042830
49134963200862681703176774115437941755363670637799
08279963556956436572800286835535562483733337524409
90735067709628443287363500729444640394058938260556
35615446832321914949835991535024593960198026143550
34915341561413975080553492042984685869042671369729
59432799270157302860632198198519187171162147204313
26736371990032510981560378617615838239495314260376
28555369005714414623002367202494786935979014596272
75647327983564900896013913125375709712947237682165
84273385694198868267789456099371827798546039550481
93966363733020953807261965658687028741391908959254
79109139065222171490342469937003707021339710682734
97173738046984452113756225260095828324586288486644
14887777251716547950457638477301077505585332159232

The digit frequencies from this run are:
Digit Occurrences
0 94
1 81
2 96
3 111
4 84
5 111
6 111
7 112
8 91
9 109

There's no obvious evidence for a significant excess of nines here (we'll see how to calculate this numerically before long). There was an excess of nines over the chance expectation, 100, but greater excesses occurred for the digits 3, 5, 6, and 7. But take a look at the first line of the results!

51866599999944246273322297520235159670265786865762
.
.
.

These digits were supposed to be random, yet in the first thousand, the first dozen for that matter, we found a pattern as striking as “999999”. What's the probability of that happening? Just the number of possible numbers of d digits which contain one or more sequences of p or more consecutive nines:

Plugging in 1000 for d and 6 for p yields:
0.000995

So the probability of finding “999999” in a set of 1000 random digits is less than one in a thousand! So then, are the digits not random, after all? Might our subject, while failing to influence the outcome of the experiment in the way we've requested, have somehow marked the results with a signature of a thousand-to-one probability of appearing by chance? Or have we simply asked the wrong question and gotten a perfectly accurate answer that doesn't mean what we think it does at first glance?

The latter turns out to be the case. The data are right before our eyes, and the probability we calculated is correct, but we asked the wrong question, and in doing so fell into a trap littered with the bones of many a naïve researcher. Note the order in which we did things. We ran the experiment, examined the data, found something seemingly odd in it, then calculated the probability of that particular oddity appearing by chance. We asked the question, “What is the probability of ‘999999’ appearing in a 1000 digit random sequence?” and got the answer “less than one in a thousand”, a result most people would consider significant. But since we calculated the probability after seeing the data, in fact we were asking the question “What is the chance that ‘999999’ appears in a 1000 digit random sequence which contains one occurrence of ‘999999’?”. The answer to that question is, of course, “certainty”.
try
In the original examination of the data, we were really asking “What is the probability we'll find some striking sequence of six digits in a random 1000 digit number?”. We can't precisely quantify that without defining what “striking” means to the observer, but it is clearly quite high. Consider that I could have made the case just as strongly for “000000”, “777777” or any other six-digit repeat. That alone reduces the probability of occurrence by chance to one in ten. Or, perhaps I might have pointed out a run of digits like “123456”, “012345”, “987654”, and so on; or the first five or six digits of a mathematical constant such as Pi, e, or the square root of two; regular patterns like “101010”, “123321”, or a multitude of others; or maybe my telephone or license plate number, or the subject's! It is, in fact, very likely you'll find some pattern you consider striking in a random 1000-digit number.

[Fruitcake]

I get terrible dice results most of the time.

[SirSebstar]

I get terrible dice results most of the time.

But thats only because Lack hates your guts..lol

[Fruitcake]

I get terrible dice results most of the time.

But thats only because Lack hates your guts..lol

Indeed...it is always something of a struggle to beat players who consistently roll 6s against me so as to hold my rank.

[SirSebstar]

I get terrible dice results most of the time.

But thats only because Lack hates your guts..lol

Indeed...it is always something of a struggle to beat players who consistently roll 6s against me so as to hold my rank.

key is consistency, that’s key to a good pie too..

[Fruitcake]

I get terrible dice results most of the time.

But thats only because Lack hates your guts..lol

Indeed...it is always something of a struggle to beat players who consistently roll 6s against me so as to hold my rank.

key is consistency, that’s key to a good pie too..

Especially a good Steak and kidney pie.

[SirSebstar]

I get terrible dice results most of the time.

But thats only because Lack hates your guts..lol

Indeed...it is always something of a struggle to beat players who consistently roll 6s against me so as to hold my rank.

key is consistency, that’s key to a good pie too..

Especially a good Steak and kidney pie.

How is the distribution of the Steak and Kidney in a Steak and Kidney pie? Any random or more a general, seemingly random devision...lol
how does it taste anyways?

[natty dread]

I assume it tastes a lot like kidneys. And maybe steak.

[Fruitcake]

key is consistency, that’s key to a good pie too..

Especially a good Steak and kidney pie.

How is the distribution of the Steak and Kidney in a Steak and Kidney pie? Any random or more a general, seemingly random devision...lol
how does it taste anyways?

Actually randomising the meat is not a great idea. After all, based on true random one could end up eating Kidney pies for the rest of one's life!

2 parts Kidney to 5 parts steak is best. Mushrooms and brown ale are also a must to really add depth to the flavours.

[RADAGA]

And use young calves kidneys, or your pie will taste not like shit, but like the similar, but liquid byproduct of cows digestion, made on those.

And if it is randomized, and you get to eat it your whole life, you will have a miserable life, indeed

[SirSebstar]

I like chicken liver with bacon wraped around it. Or is that a bit too random for this thread?

[RADAGA]

15x18 ---- end 3x16

CombatEgypt: 235 - vs - Levant: 46 lost 2
CombatEgypt: 321 - vs - Levant: 23 lost 2
CombatEgypt: 312 - vs - Levant: 65 lost 2
CombatEgypt: 643 - vs - Levant: 11 won2
CombatEgypt: 232 - vs - Levant: 36 lost 2
CombatEgypt: 215 - vs - Levant: 35 lost 2
CombatEgypt: 216 - vs - Levant: 36 lost 2

SWEET!!!!!!! I managed to get a 1-in-three chance SIX times out of seven!

[trinicardinal]

15x18 ---- end 3x16

CombatEgypt: 235 - vs - Levant: 46 lost 2
CombatEgypt: 321 - vs - Levant: 23 lost 2
CombatEgypt: 312 - vs - Levant: 65 lost 2
CombatEgypt: 643 - vs - Levant: 11 won2
CombatEgypt: 232 - vs - Levant: 36 lost 2
CombatEgypt: 215 - vs - Levant: 35 lost 2
CombatEgypt: 216 - vs - Levant: 36 lost 2

SWEET!!!!!!! I managed to get a 1-in-three chance SIX times out of seven!

Are you still ranting about the dice? wow... how long has it been again? Anyway, these things happen with Random Dice. Its unpleasant and unfortunate but that's the way life is.

[RADAGA]

Still and will be until the day you finally accept there is something wrong with it. You dont have even to fix it, just admit there is a problem.

The way I see it is like capitalism> it is not perfect, but it is the best we have. That dont stop anyone on grumbling against it when things dont go their way.


OH, by the way, another example of todays rolls

CombatIeme: 631 - vs - Lig: 34 lost 1
CombatIeme: 314 - vs - Lig: 5 lost
CombatIeme: 122 - vs - Lig: 5 lost
CombatIeme: 321 - vs - Lig: 4 lost

If it is THTA random, how come EVERY ONE of my games today suck? I will be down to cook by the end of the day.

[natty dread]

RAGADA, people have explained to you how it works, but you just refuse to listen every time, you just stubbornly keep saying "nuh uh, I lost some rolls today, it can't be random"...

So as far as I'm concerned, why bother.

Again, read this post viewtopic.php?f=6&t=138002&start=0

[Mr Changsha]

Still and will be until the day you finally accept there is something wrong with it. You dont have even to fix it, just admit there is a problem.

The way I see it is like capitalism> it is not perfect, but it is the best we have. That dont stop anyone on grumbling against it when things dont go their way.


OH, by the way, another example of todays rolls

CombatIeme: 631 - vs - Lig: 34 lost 1
CombatIeme: 314 - vs - Lig: 5 lost
CombatIeme: 122 - vs - Lig: 5 lost
CombatIeme: 321 - vs - Lig: 4 lost



If it is THTA random, how come EVERY ONE of my games today suck? I will be down to cook by the end of the day.

Here are some of my current 'anti-streaking' measures...

Lose 2 troops...pause for at least 10 seconds.
Lose 4 in a row...wait at least 1 minute.
Lose 6 in a row....go make a sandwich and possibly a cup of tea too, if I'm feeling extravagant.

Also...I refuse to roll in cafes, bars etc unless there is simply no choice. Almost sure to be a complete dice fail in these circumstances.

I never roll immediately after my opposition if they have just tanked on the dice. This is impetuous, and the dice gods punish that kind of thing.

To continue to expose my madness to you all...I am currently convinced that if I am listening to a move (chap on the phone commentating) then the roll will be awful. This isn't set in stone (unlike the above), but I am becoming increasingly certain that is is unlucky to do so.

I do believe in the luck of rolling within the final two hours of the 24. If anyone has ever played me and wondered why I am so slow to play my turns (or my team's turns), then there you go.

I have been known to use my wife has a conduit to improved luck. Upon taking on a key roll I will often demand my (poor put upon) wife wishes me luck. If not done with sufficient gusto then I will require she puts more feeling into it.

Finally, I sometimes am quite unable to roll without exhorting the dice to greater efforts. For example, if I murmur ''Two up!'' upon attacking i have found the dice tend to go with me. On a similar note, I believe that telling the dice gods that I will accept a 1/1 will improve the chances of not losing two.

As i went to bed a few days ago I had two games (one crucial one not all that important) in tricky spots. I asked the dice gods to truly bugger me in the latter, but let the former roll to average or better. The dice gods played me true...i got hit harder than I though possible in the unimportant game but the dice held up in the crucial one.

I said thank you to them the next day most profusely...for you must be polite with dice gods. I never curse them or their dice...I accept when they screw me and give genuine thanks when they bless me.

I hope that helps Radaga...from one loon to another.

[Funkyterrance]

Ahh finally someone whose dice superstitions rival my own.

Of course you don't turn in busy public places, this is elementary and does not even require mentioning.
On the more supernaturally charged maps I have to spiritually sober myself up before rolling, otherwise: dice tank.
Whenever I have the option I switch my attacks back and forth between terts, giving the dice gods variety, the spice of life.
If I am about to turn in a particularly important game and get "that black feeling" I wait several hours until it feels "white" again.

I only wish I knew which deity actually controlled all of this. I always figure Zeus is as good a bet as any.

[natty dread]

If I am about to turn in a particularly important game and get "that black feeling" I wait several hours until it feels "white" again.

Owen is going to have a field day with this.

[Funkyterrance]

ooh dang, didn't think of that. I'm preparing myself for some heavy cliches as we speak