One more thing about the dice.

[RADAGA]

Stop rolling then dude...

The punishment I would get by giving you the deserved reply is not worth the momentaneous meager satisfaction I´d receive.

I´d rather keep annoying you, bonifratti spokesperson of the System, and keep posting.

[RADAGA]

3v2 █████████████████████████ 213 / 180 / 197 (36.1% / 30.51% / 33.39%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)

The ideal stats say, for those rolls: 218;197;173

Therefore, I got an extra 24 bad rolls, 13.87% EXTRA unlucky rolls. And we are speaking of almost 5000 dice rolled, it should be, at the very least, closing to the average by now. Instead, it increases daily. By 2009, I am sure they will be more than 35% bad rolls, and will be leading the chart.

Overall stats
Attacker threw 3052 dice.
Defender threw 1672 dice.

Anyone who know statistics (and is honest) admits 5.000 is a fairly decent ammount of data for something that can have only 6 possible results. But anyway, I know I am shouting at walls here.

[Timminz]

But anyway, I know I am shouting at walls here.

You're "shouting at walls, because the rest of us have read, and understood the study of the dice that e_i_pi did.

I suggest you stop worrying so much about the dice and start working on the strategies you're using.

[Stroop]

Anyone who know statistics (and is honest) admits 5.000 is a fairly decent ammount of data for something that can have only 6 possible results. But anyway, I know I am shouting at walls here.

If this would all be about the randomness of rolling one die at a time, perhaps. This isn't the case though, you keep complaining about your 3v2 statistics. Each time you do a 3v2, you roll 5 "intensity cubes", which cuts your sample down to 1000 (and from this you should subtract your 2v2's, 2v1's etc.). Your sample isn't large enough to disprove the randomness of an experiment with 7776 possible outcomes.

[RADAGA]

Anyone who know statistics (and is honest) admits 5.000 is a fairly decent ammount of data for something that can have only 6 possible results. But anyway, I know I am shouting at walls here.

If this would all be about the randomness of rolling one die at a time, perhaps. This isn't the case though, you keep complaining about your 3v2 statistics. Each time you do a 3v2, you roll 5 "intensity cubes", which cuts your sample down to 1000 (and from this you should subtract your 2v2's, 2v1's etc.). Your sample isn't large enough to disprove the randomness of an experiment with 7776 possible outcomes.

I agree. But why the error is increasing?

3v2 █████████████████████████ 218 / 184 / 202 (36.09% / 30.46% / 33.44%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)

Shouldnt it be closing to the expected, the more I roll?

[Stroop]

Anyone who know statistics (and is honest) admits 5.000 is a fairly decent ammount of data for something that can have only 6 possible results. But anyway, I know I am shouting at walls here.

If this would all be about the randomness of rolling one die at a time, perhaps. This isn't the case though, you keep complaining about your 3v2 statistics. Each time you do a 3v2, you roll 5 "intensity cubes", which cuts your sample down to 1000 (and from this you should subtract your 2v2's, 2v1's etc.). Your sample isn't large enough to disprove the randomness of an experiment with 7776 possible outcomes.

I agree. But why the error is increasing?

3v2 █████████████████████████ 218 / 184 / 202 (36.09% / 30.46% / 33.44%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)

Shouldnt it be closing to the expected, the more I roll?

Eventually it should even out and your stat should hover somewhere around the expected value, but that might take a lot more rolls than you've got now. Keep it up and I'm sure you'll see your values approach the average.

[Timminz]

And when he says " a lot more" he means a LOT more. Into the hundreds of thousands, or more.

[RADAGA]

And when he says " a lot more" he means a LOT more. Into the hundreds of thousands, or more.

Well, it keeps getting worse here

3v2 █████████████████████████ 221 / 187 / 208 (35.88% / 30.36% / 33.77%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)

Since last report, I won 3 double attacks, and I had three ties. Meanwhile, the number with the LEAST chance to happen, the double defence, got six by itself!!!!!

Imagine that. on a 3x2, to win OR tie to happen have a chance of 70,24%
To loose two there is a chance of 29,26%

on the last rolls, the thing with over 70% to happen got the same ammount of occourences than the thing with less than half of that chance. Of course you can throw every single study with large ammounts of data and say whatever you want. But the fact is, the dice with me are not behaving like they should.

So it takes some hundreds of thousands rolls to get close the average. Until then, you just have to suck it up, and deal with seemingly loaded dice. Analizing this statement raises adittional doubts. But how can I expect it to close to the average it the error tends to INCREASE the more I roll?

Well, I have been posting the proof since I intalled the dice analyser. Since roll 1 I had unbalanced data. And, as I said, it keeps moving AWAY from the average. If it "evens out" sometimes mean I will have several months of good dice? Mind you that this is contradictory to the random dice logic itself. As it is NOW, with 208 double losses(221/187/208), I would need 42 double attacks and 51 ties, with NO double loss, to even it out (263/238/208). BUT if I roll nearly 100 3x2 and do not suffer a single double loss, it is also against the probabilities.

So, is it bad strategy, or simply I should have had ADDITIONAL 42 full victories and 51 ties before seeing 208 double defeats?

Making the inverse math, we can say that if I subtract 39 double losses from the total, it gets close to the average (221/187/169)

So, is it BAD STRATEGY, or I had 23 PERCENT (39/169) more losses than it would be reasonable to expact?

I already got offended several times by some retards that instead of being civil, decide to say: you dont get bad dice, you are a bad player. Of course I did not posted all the above math for them, because it would be too much to expect them to know anything beyond + and - . It is a wonder then can read, after all. I bet they voted Bush as well. And dont know what is the capital of Afghanistan (or where is it, for that matter), albeit they are convinced it is a dangerous place, wherever it is.

[Stroop]

on the last rolls, the thing with over 70% to happen got the same ammount of occourences than the thing with less than half of that chance. Of course you can throw every single study with large ammounts of data and say whatever you want. But the fact is, the dice with me are not behaving like they should.

How should the dice behave? Should you get perfectly average dice? I'd be more alarmed about the randomness if you show up with average dice each time instead of the numbers you show us.

Well, I have been posting the proof since I intalled the dice analyser. Since roll 1 I had unbalanced data. And, as I said, it keeps moving AWAY from the average. If it "evens out" sometimes mean I will have several months of good dice? Mind you that this is contradictory to the random dice logic itself. As it is NOW, with 208 double losses(221/187/208), I would need 42 double attacks and 51 ties, with NO double loss, to even it out (263/238/208). BUT if I roll nearly 100 3x2 and do not suffer a single double loss, it is also against the probabilities.

It doesn't have to even out in the next 100 rolls, but more like in the next 100000 rolls which means you'd only need to roll a tiny percentage above average to succeed in evening your stats out.

So, is it bad strategy, or simply I should have had ADDITIONAL 42 full victories and 51 ties before seeing 208 double defeats?

You shouldn't see anything. It is the most likely scenario that you'll see the dice perfectly on or around average, and obviously you are experiencing one of the less likely scenarios. They exist and will happen to someone from time to time.

Making the inverse math, we can say that if I subtract 39 double losses from the total, it gets close to the average (221/187/169)

So, is it BAD STRATEGY, or I had 23 PERCENT (39/169) more losses than it would be reasonable to expact?

The bad rolls themselves are not bad strategy, not taking them into account is. Apparently you've been suffering from bad dice for a while now, so you'll just have to keep that in mind while taking your turns.

I already got offended several times by some retards that instead of being civil, decide to say: you dont get bad dice, you are a bad player. Of course I did not posted all the above math for them, because it would be too much to expect them to know anything beyond + and - . It is a wonder then can read, after all. I bet they voted Bush as well. And dont know what is the capital of Afghanistan (or where is it, for that matter), albeit they are convinced it is a dangerous place, wherever it is.

I think I am one of those "retards". I understand your maths perfectly well and I dare to say I understand more complex maths than you. I very much enjoy reading books. I do not live in America, nor do I care for their presidency. The capital of Afghanistan is Kabul, and I doubt it's a safe place.

[Timminz]

I already got offended several times by some retards that instead of being civil, decide to say: you dont get bad dice, you are a bad player.

We're not saying that you don't get bad dice. Everyone gets bad dice. We're saying you haven't figured out how to minimize the damage bad dice cause. Just keep practicing, stop attacking so much when you're losing, and come back here to have a good cry when you need to vent about some shitty dice. Posting here is cheaper than smashing stuff (like some people do when they get exceptionally bad dice). If you'd like to book some time for a full session of grief-counseling, speak to my receptionist on your way out.

[RADAGA]

Stroop: FInally a decent answer. And the funny thing is the one giving a decent answer was one of the few who got offended by my vent.

Anyway. On needing a tiny ammount above average wins to even out hardly seems fair. I got abyssal rolls for months, so far away from the average that is even ludicrous. It is very much perceptible.

So, good rolls come, in tiny amounts over millions of rolls. Bad results, on the other side, compensate that by being generated in huge ammounts over a few hundreds.

The tiny good percentages are not enough to unbalance anything toward the win side, the bad rolls, on the other hand, are a disaster.

God, Budah, Allah or whatever is "up there" hates me.

[RADAGA]

3v2 █████████████████████████ 225 / 192 / 217 (35.49% / 30.28% / 34.23%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)

34,23% ...

Since last time:

4 victories
5 ties
9 defeats

Again the 29% equals the 71% odds. The real odds for me are: 20% double victory, 30% tie and 50% double defeat. Over 600 rolls and have always been like that.

[e_i_pi]

3v2 █████████████████████████ 225 / 192 / 217 (35.49% / 30.28% / 34.23%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)

34,23% ...

Since last time:

4 victories
5 ties
9 defeats

Again the 29% equals the 71% odds. The real odds for me are: 20% double victory, 30% tie and 50% double defeat. Over 600 rolls and have always been like that.

Ahem, don't you mean 0% tie, -100% double vicotry and infinity% quadruple loss?

[RADAGA]

3v2 █████████████████████████ 225 / 192 / 217 (35.49% / 30.28% / 34.23%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)

34,23% ...

Since last time:

4 victories
5 ties
9 defeats

Again the 29% equals the 71% odds. The real odds for me are: 20% double victory, 30% tie and 50% double defeat. Over 600 rolls and have always been like that.

Ahem, don't you mean 0% tie, -100% double vicotry and infinity% quadruple loss?

Actually, no. But I can understand if my english is too advanced for you. I can use simpler words, if ask nicely.

[Stroop]

3v2 █████████████████████████ 225 / 192 / 217 (35.49% / 30.28% / 34.23%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)

34,23% ...

Since last time:

4 victories
5 ties
9 defeats

Again the 29% equals the 71% odds. The real odds for me are: 20% double victory, 30% tie and 50% double defeat. Over 600 rolls and have always been like that.

If those are truly your odds, your statistics are amazing!

Seriously though, I can take a sample from my dice and end up with odds of 100% double victory. Stop looking at such a small part of the picture.

[e_i_pi]

Actually, no. But I can understand if my english is too advanced for you. I can use simpler words, if ask nicely.

No. Is okay. Understand me good now

[RADAGA]

3v2 █████████████████████████ 225 / 192 / 217 (35.49% / 30.28% / 34.23%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)

34,23% ...

Since last time:

4 victories
5 ties
9 defeats

Again the 29% equals the 71% odds. The real odds for me are: 20% double victory, 30% tie and 50% double defeat. Over 600 rolls and have always been like that.

If those are truly your odds, your statistics are amazing!

Seriously though, I can take a sample from my dice and end up with odds of 100% double victory. Stop looking at such a small part of the picture.

YAEH? but those are not a "sample" those are my full statistics.

I am not looking at a small part of the picture. I am looking at MY part of the picture, my whole rolls in this game are off-the-media. and they always tend to get worse.

[Nickbaldwin]

Your sample IS a miniscule sample of all the dice the site has ever dealt with. Can't you understand that?

[lancehoch]

RADAGA, the thing is, there are 7776 possible roll combinations when rolling 3v2. To get meaningful statistics you need to roll 3v2 at least 3000 times. When you do that, then you are looking at the bigger picture. Over the short run, anything will look skewed. If I flip a coin 4 times and it comes up heads every time, does that mean that my coin is unfair? No, it just means that I hit a streak. If I were to then flip the coin another 96 times and get 50 tails and 46 heads, I would wind up with an even 50/50 split. You need to look at a larger sample size than the few hundred rolls since there are so many possible outcomes.

[RADAGA]

RADAGA, the thing is, there are 7776 possible roll combinations when rolling 3v2. To get meaningful statistics you need to roll 3v2 at least 3000 times. When you do that, then you are looking at the bigger picture. Over the short run, anything will look skewed. If I flip a coin 4 times and it comes up heads every time, does that mean that my coin is unfair? No, it just means that I hit a streak. If I were to then flip the coin another 96 times and get 50 tails and 46 heads, I would wind up with an even 50/50 split. You need to look at a larger sample size than the few hundred rolls since there are so many possible outcomes.

Fine, but that still does not change the fact I am having a 6 months streak of largelly off the media rolls. Check victories, up to may I got an average of 6 victores / month. I have not changed my play style, I have not changed the kinds of game I play, and I play a very specific type of game. Always the same settings over and over.

Since may, I got 6 vitories ... and there were months I got none at all. What on earth can explain that someone that used to win 25% of the games he plays (not a very good statistics, but a decent one) Suddently wins NONE for months in a row.

Answer: bad dice. for months and months and months. I still play, hoping the streaks turn into my favour, and because it gives me something to do in between work. BUT thas it. I always hit a 3x2 expecting 2 full defences before I have a chance of taking 1 from them. I start games and look for one 3x1 after a few people play to grant a card, not trusting a 6x3 or a 7x3 to wield.

[rishaed]

maybe your not playing enough games at a time...how many games do you play a month eh?
to add to this stop whining, not a good trait to have in a job ya know

[muchalls]

the dice is screwed up.just ask my past 20 opponents.....

i've just lost a 17 to 2 battle...i have the 17!!!!

...previous games where i have grossly outnumbered my opponent, I have still lost....on a pretty bad losing streak...dropped 3 ranks within days.....

...dice just isn't that random...in my view, it sometimes favours a particular player whether they are attacking or defending.....I dont know how to sort it but it's really really starting to frustrate me, and i'm thinking of moving over to another online game because of this.

[Downey]

Dear OP,
How can you be playing 6 games at a time when you're a freemium player?

[Jeff Hardy]

you guys seems to have worse dice than me...

my worst dice ever was a 9vs1 loss and my second was a 17vs3 loss

i dont know what the odds of this are but out of the thousands of times ive rolled the cc dice im not sure if that is abnormal...

[Namor]

The so called problem of unfair dice is one that has been debated many times as far as I can see. So here is my five pennies worth.

1. Some players have selective memories. By that I mean that they have just as many fantastically lucky runs, just don’t remember them. Let’s face it we can all tell tales of 15v5 and end up 1v4 it’s just that the latter are the ones we remember vividly.

2. Some players simply are never satisfied. I played a game recently where I lost 19 to 3 (and still got nowhere) to a player who shall remain nameless (clue: Bounce UrRelative). Another player in the same game against the same whiner had 18v2 reduced to 3v1 and yet the nameless one went on to complain “that just stupid sucks. I lost 8 and only killed 3”

3. However I believe the main reason is that the dice are just not given a fair chance to even things up. As I’ve already mentioned we have all had 10v3 loses but ask yourselves this, how often have I ever attempted a 3v10, if you’re honest then only when you’re on the ropes and have no other choice.

So come on guys, stop complaining!!!