Official in game Dice analysis

[AndyDufresne]

Hm believe lack...believe Ped...

Believe lack...believe Ped...

Hm, I'd need a bigger sample size.


--Andy

[Semirhage]

*Just stirring again *

If you look at the number of sixes, they are almost exactly the same. Hmm. Maybe it isn't the dice. Maybe it's just me. Or maybe... it's those pesky little green goblins tweaking our numbers again. Drats.

We'll just never know, will we, no matter how many throws we analyse. I'm with Lack on this one.

[zarvinny]

i just lost 8 guys to 1 army country and DID NOT TAKE IT! 99.88788276602831% of the time I would win in that situation!!! thats like 1 out of 1000 times that i would loose.

But... LET ME TELL YOU HOW I DID IT!!!

first you do a test roll. and if its like 1 3 2 vs 6, you know you are in good shape to loose all your men! So then, you just keep clickin that good ol' attack button until, before you know it, you lost all your friggin armies!@@@

that my friends is how to loose a game of risk.... FAST

[cyberdaniel]

Well, if lack uses the numbers that random.org gives for every throw then it will be pretty easy to test this, but if he uses a set of numbers that get recycled that get refreshed once in a while that will be a lot more complicated.

[tonywalrus]

Wooah guys, some of you are not getting out enough!

1. There may be runs; good and bad, I am more than willing to accept this, it has happened to me and it happens within most statistical samples. If you dont believe me roll a die 5000 times and check out the results. If you must.

2. The numbers come from random.org developed by lecturers at Trinity College in Dublin, I am more than willing to accept that they are far smarter than me. I am sadly Phd'less.

3. Are you saying that in your games you ONLY attack? Of course not. Therefore when you are defending if there is any anomoly in the program then it is working in your favour. I am willing to accept this because logic dictates that it is so. The alternative is that the computer knows that YOU are playing, that YOU are attacking, it hates YOU and it deliberately favours the other guy. If you are willing to accept this then perhaps medical help should be saught out.

There may be a problem with the numbers or there may not. It does not really matter since it affects everyone equally over time.

Learn to live with it, learn to enjoy the recuperative power of sunshine!

Much more "samplng" and you will go blind

[Pilate]

3. Are you saying that in your games you ONLY attack? Of course not. Therefore when you are defending if there is any anomoly in the program then it is working in your favour. I am willing to accept this because logic dictates that it is so. The alternative is that the computer knows that YOU are playing, that YOU are attacking, it hates YOU and it deliberately favours the other guy. If you are willing to accept this then perhaps medical help should be saught out.

that's the point. the dice are biased in favour of the defence.
That's fine with me, as long as its consistent

[Pedronicus]

From: Sandave
To: Pedronicus
Posted: 29 Jul 2006 10:32
Subject: linked to PR? Quote message
Are you sure this place isn't linked to pokerroom? i had 15 armies, attacked a country with 1 army and by the time i took it. I had 6 armies left. WTF? ONCE THE ROLL WAS 1 1 1 AND HE ROLLED A 2.

[tonywalrus]

The chances of a 1,1,1 role are only 216 to one against. Given the number of rolls in all of the games going on in the site I would guess that this is surprisingly common.

[niMic]

1's do appear quite commonly though. If you attack with 3 dice, you should get a 1 every other throw, I suspect it's much more than that. Just today in one game, I got 1's every single throw, sometimes 2 1's. Silly 1's >.<

[Pedronicus]

This the best Dice analysis so far... Since Mrs Mad has dropped her dice analysis.

Total of all games in this thread - Attack threw 988 dice, defend threw 550 dice -figures below are percentages (of the number thrown)

Attack | Defend
18.72 | 15.09 (1)
16.70 | 16.18 (2)
17.51 | 17.45 (3)
15.38 | 16.91 (4)
15.99 | 18.55 (5)
15.69 | 15.82 (6)

[Pedronicus]

See - I found it!
2 years ago I was complaining about the dice.
Nothing much changes:)

[Timminz]

See - I found it!
2 years ago I was complaining about the dice.
Nothing much changes:)

Oh how I love sweet, sweet irony.

[edbeard]

This the best Dice analysis so far... Since Mrs Mad has dropped her dice analysis.

Total of all games in this thread - Attack threw 988 dice, defend threw 550 dice -figures below are percentages (of the number thrown)

Attack | Defend
18.72 | 15.09 (1)
16.70 | 16.18 (2)
17.51 | 17.45 (3)
15.38 | 16.91 (4)
15.99 | 18.55 (5)
15.69 | 15.82 (6)

Just wanted to show you that we do expect these dice to be following the correct distribution.

The 95% CI for the attackers is (.1437, .1909)
The 95% CI for the defenders is (.1354, .1992)

Note that all the percentages for attackers fall into the attackers interval and the defenders percentages into the defenders interval.

I showed how to get this in another thread. You can also search it. It's called the normal approximation to the binomial. read about it here

I was lazy and just used this site to make the calculations.

[Plutoman]

You know, does no one realize millions of data samples are taken from random.org?

Millions.

A few streaks of a couple dozen aren't that odd. Not to mention 1/1000 for say losing an 8v1, that means it'll happen quite frequently with the amount of games and data used.

[owenshooter]

You know, does no one realize millions of data samples are taken from random.org?

Millions.

A few streaks of a couple dozen aren't that odd. Not to mention 1/1000 for say losing an 8v1, that means it'll happen quite frequently with the amount of games and data used.

*fingers in ears, shaking his head feverishly*
no, no, no, no!!! stop making sense!!! it has to be the dice, it can't be my bad decision making!!! it can't
be the auto attack!! it can't be any of the valid points you just brought up!!! no, no, no, no!! stop making sense!!-0