Moderator: Community Team
SirSebstar wrote:Larry46 wrote:this fucking site and it's so called "random" dice is rigged................F U C K Off Conquerclub!
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. eh.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Dukasaur wrote:People have a misconception that "random" means "even distribution". It doesn't.
Just_essence wrote:But then, what about the Law of Large Numbers? I thought it stated that any experimental probability, if truly random, has a growing sample size, the experimental probability will edge closer and closer to the theoretical probability, which, in this case, means at least a half-decent distribution...
chapcrap wrote:Just_essence wrote:But then, what about the Law of Large Numbers? I thought it stated that any experimental probability, if truly random, has a growing sample size, the experimental probability will edge closer and closer to the theoretical probability, which, in this case, means at least a half-decent distribution...
Which is my assault average is 3.51 and my defense is 3.50 over my last 2,500,000 million rolls.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Just_essence wrote:Well, the LLN said that the experimental probaility would approach the theoretical, but it never said it would equal the theoretical. As it stands, that's very normal.
jefjef wrote:Oh yeah?...
My avg assault is 3.51... Opponents avg defense is 3.52
My avg defense is 3.49... Opponents avg assault is 3.51
Do the MATH!!! .
SirSebstar wrote:jefjef wrote:Oh yeah?...
My avg assault is 3.51... Opponents avg defense is 3.52
My avg defense is 3.49... Opponents avg assault is 3.51
Do the MATH!!! .
done. you have a sample of 100k dice results. you have a deviation of less then 0.1 percent. thats 100 more 2's then 5's over 100k dice... looked at it per result thats a deviation of 1 dice per 1000 that you roll less then average... it does not give you an autoloss result, just that you attack only 3 times as often as you attack.
I have a slightly larger sample. 500k. and it still tells me lately i have been on a winning run, on average because it used to be a lot worse then yours...
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
SirSebstar wrote:"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?!
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Just_essence wrote: It's like trying to invade Switzerland.
jefjef wrote:SirSebstar wrote:"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.
Stevinator wrote: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.
Anatolia wrote: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
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users