Conquer Club

Klobber, quit employing circular reasoning to aggravate the statisticians. Your explanation isn't even valid. Of course there are odds when rolling dice. I believe they made a few games based around this fact...

read!

KLOBBER wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:

KLOBBER wrote: 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.

You've already lost all credibility in this thread KLOBBER. Based on that statement, you don't even know what the chances are to roll a 6 on a single throw. How could you possibly engage in any discussion where we talk about MULTIPLE dice throws?

Either learn the basics of calculating odds, or stop trolling this thread.

Since the dice are designed to be unpredictable, and they are just that, they are perfect as they are.

Nobody knows beforehand what the chances are, since the dice are unpredictable, just as they are designed to be, and you have proven nothing but the fact that they are unpredictable. Thank you for your help; you've done a better job of this than any other dice complainer I've seen.

Your whole argument is based around the fact that the dice are designed to be unpredictable? Where are you getting this? From every source I have looked at, including lack's direct words, the goal is to have RANDOM dice. Why else would he get them from RANDOM.org?

I do think this thread would be a good place for some research by the "dice is flawed" crowd. IIRC it contains/links to the test that has been made.

KLOBBER wrote:Odds bodkins!



Since you have volunteered the fact that you somehow don't know the definition of the term "odds," you are free to look it up on any of numerous online dictionaries. If you were looking for the truth, I would give it to you.

However, by asking your opponent instead of just looking it up directly, you betray the fact that what you're really looking for is an argument, not the truth.

Your failure: Stupid questions don't warrant answers.

The odds remain the same Klobber, regardless of the outcome. Ad hominem attacks do little to advance your argument. If I roll a die and it shows a 6 does that mean the odds of a 6 were 100%? This is your argument. I believe you may have the wrong idea about the meaning of "odds". Seeing as you didn't answer, and that is your tactic to avoid admitting defeat, I assume you are in fact admitting defeat.

As I've said to you before, just because you are not using bad language doesn't stop you from being a flamer and a troll. But then you knew that already....

xelabale wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:Odds bodkins!



Since you have volunteered the fact that you somehow don't know the definition of the term "odds," you are free to look it up on any of numerous online dictionaries. If you were looking for the truth, I would give it to you.

However, by asking your opponent instead of just looking it up directly, you betray the fact that what you're really looking for is an argument, not the truth.

Your failure: Stupid questions don't warrant answers.

The odds remain the same Klobber, regardless of the outcome. Ad hominem attacks do little to advance your argument. If I roll a die and it shows a 6 does that mean the odds of a 6 were 100%? This is your argument. I believe you may have the wrong idea about the meaning of "odds". Seeing as you didn't answer, and that is your tactic to avoid admitting defeat, I assume you are in fact admitting defeat.

As I've said to you before, just because you are not using bad language doesn't stop you from being a flamer and a troll. But then you knew that already....

As I just said, stupid questions don't warrant answers.

maniacmath17 wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:

KLOBBER wrote: 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.

You've already lost all credibility in this thread KLOBBER. Based on that statement, you don't even know what the chances are to roll a 6 on a single throw. How could you possibly engage in any discussion where we talk about MULTIPLE dice throws?

Either learn the basics of calculating odds, or stop trolling this thread.

Since the dice are designed to be unpredictable, and they are just that, they are perfect as they are.

Nobody knows beforehand what the chances are, since the dice are unpredictable, just as they are designed to be, and you have proven nothing but the fact that they are unpredictable. Thank you for your help; you've done a better job of this than any other dice complainer I've seen.

Your whole argument is based around the fact that the dice are designed to be unpredictable? Where are you getting this? From every source I have looked at, including lack's direct words, the goal is to have RANDOM dice. Why else would he get them from RANDOM.org?

I already addressed that issue. Scroll up.

kiddicus maximus wrote:Klobber, quit employing circular reasoning to aggravate the statisticians. Your explanation isn't even valid. Of course there are odds when rolling dice. I believe they made a few games based around this fact...

read!

My reasoning is not circular, it is direct and clear. Theirs is circular and nonsensical.

In addition, their premise is that the CC dice are somehow predictable, which is a flawed premise.

Actually, the CC dice are unpredictable.

KLOBBER wrote:

kiddicus maximus wrote:Klobber, quit employing circular reasoning to aggravate the statisticians. Your explanation isn't even valid. Of course there are odds when rolling dice. I believe they made a few games based around this fact...

read!

My reasoning is not circular, it is direct and clear. Theirs is circular and nonsensical.

In addition, their premise is that the CC dice are somehow predictable, which is a flawed premise.

Actually, the CC dice are unpredictable.

Predictions are based on probability, which is inherent in any random number generators with a cap (eg: 1-6 as opposed to 1-∞).

KLOBBER wrote:Actually, you're both wrong.

If such a scenario ever happened, of which there is no proof, then the odds of it happening were 100%.

If it didn't happen, which is more likely, then the odds were 0%.

Lets put that to a test.
Before I roll a die what are the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says there are no odds, it's entirely unpredictable.

I roll the die. It shows 3. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 0%

OR

I roll the die. It shows a 1. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 100%

If I'm misrepresenting your logic please correct me. Or will you refuse to answer this too?

xelabale wrote:OK Klobber - define odds for us. If you don't do it I will assume you acknowledge that you are wrong by your silence, as you usually don't answer awkward questions...

You refuse to answer the question. QED

KLOBBER wrote:As I just said, stupid questions don't warrant answers.

LOL.

How obvious is it that you're copping out?

At least you know you're wrong.

KLOBBER wrote:In that case, either the statistics course is also wrong, or your interpretation of it is wrong, or both. I have cited clear and irrefutable facts about the dice, and any attempted refutation of the unadorned facts must necessarily be incorrect.

By your "reasoning," if I flip a coin and it lands on heads, then, due to so-called "statistics," it must necessarily land on tails the second time, in order to line up with the unscientific and incorrect theory that it must match 50-50. However, real coins and real dice do not work that way, and neither do the dice on this site.

im not gonna read the rest of this thread, and im no stat major, but i did take a high school probability and statistics course, which i damn near failed, but i dont recall statistics ever saying anything must ever necessarily do anything.

in fact, that was kind of the point, there was always error accounted for and statistics stated anything is possible... yet at the same time it tried to show what is not probable 50-50, in the case of a coin flip, is just stating that for one individual flip there is a 50% chance of either tails or heads coming up.

nothing really for me to contribute, without reading the other 5 pages I'm gonna assume that klobber already got chewed up for having no idea what he's talking about, but i just couldnt not say something about the word 'necessarily' used in there...

Paddy The Cat wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:In that case, either the statistics course is also wrong, or your interpretation of it is wrong, or both. I have cited clear and irrefutable facts about the dice, and any attempted refutation of the unadorned facts must necessarily be incorrect.

By your "reasoning," if I flip a coin and it lands on heads, then, due to so-called "statistics," it must necessarily land on tails the second time, in order to line up with the unscientific and incorrect theory that it must match 50-50. However, real coins and real dice do not work that way, and neither do the dice on this site.

im not gonna read the rest of this thread, and im no stat major, but i did take a high school probability and statistics course, which i damn near failed, but i dont recall statistics ever saying anything must ever necessarily do anything.

in fact, that was kind of the point, there was always error accounted for and statistics stated anything is possible... yet at the same time it tried to show what is not probable 50-50, in the case of a coin flip, is just stating that for one individual flip there is a 50% chance of either tails or heads coming up.

nothing really for me to contribute, without reading the other 5 pages I'm gonna assume that klobber already got chewed up for having no idea what he's talking about, but i just couldnt not say something about the word 'necessarily' used in there...

No, just the opposite, actually, but since you didn't read it, you would have no way of knowing that.

Also, my point was that the other poster's flawed logic and incorrect understanding of how the dice actually work give the impression that he thinks that certain patterns must "necessarily" manifest, and I was criticizing that incorrect and unscientific opinion. Then again, since you didn't read it, it's no surprise that you misunderstood that also.

In reality, no matter what math you use, and no matter what logic, whether flawed or perfect, you will NEVER be able to predict what the dice should manifest, what they will manifest, what they necessarily must manifest, or even what percentage of likelihood there is for a certain pattern to manifest, beforehand. This is because the dice are UNPREDICTABLE, and they are actually designed to be unpredictable. Therefore, since they perform perfectly according to what they were designed to do, the dice are perfect as they are. It is only the dice complainers' unscientific nonsense predictions that are always flawed, and always wrong. Sort of like your post.

Thank you for displaying your copious ignorance so clearly and so generously.

john9blue wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:As I just said, stupid questions don't warrant answers.

LOL.

How obvious is it that you're copping out?

At least you know you're wrong.

No.

xelabale wrote:KLOBBER says there are no odds, it's entirely unpredictable.

I roll the die. It shows 3. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 0%

OR

I roll the die. It shows a 1. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 100%

I never wrote any of those things -- you wrote all of them. Thank you for accurately demonstrating the straw-man logical fallacy, and nothing more.

Sperpurber wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:

kiddicus maximus wrote:Klobber, quit employing circular reasoning to aggravate the statisticians. Your explanation isn't even valid. Of course there are odds when rolling dice. I believe they made a few games based around this fact...

read!

My reasoning is not circular, it is direct and clear. Theirs is circular and nonsensical.

In addition, their premise is that the CC dice are somehow predictable, which is a flawed premise.

Actually, the CC dice are unpredictable.

Predictions are based on probability, which is inherent in any random number generators with a cap (eg: 1-6 as opposed to 1-∞).

As I have stated many times, and as most dice complainers also agree, the CC dice are not random.

KLOBBER wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:

KLOBBER wrote: 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.

You've already lost all credibility in this thread KLOBBER. Based on that statement, you don't even know what the chances are to roll a 6 on a single throw. How could you possibly engage in any discussion where we talk about MULTIPLE dice throws?

Either learn the basics of calculating odds, or stop trolling this thread.

Since the dice are designed to be unpredictable, and they are just that, they are perfect as they are.

Nobody knows beforehand what the chances are, since the dice are unpredictable, just as they are designed to be, and you have proven nothing but the fact that they are unpredictable. Thank you for your help; you've done a better job of this than any other dice complainer I've seen.

Your whole argument is based around the fact that the dice are designed to be unpredictable? Where are you getting this? From every source I have looked at, including lack's direct words, the goal is to have RANDOM dice. Why else would he get them from RANDOM.org?

I already addressed that issue. Scroll up.

Lol. You never addressed the issue. At no point do you give any verification of the claim that the dice are designed to be unpredictable. And since that's the basis for your whole argument, I think you should definitely give some sort of proof for this outrageous claim. Either show where the designers said the dice are designed to be unpredictable, or stop talking.

KLOBBER wrote:Actually, you're both wrong.

If such a scenario ever happened, of which there is no proof, then the odds of it happening were 100%.

If it didn't happen, which is more likely, then the odds were 0%.

LOL, it is exactly same as that joke about the blond woman:

"What are the chances that the dinosaurs existed?"

"50-50", blond reply.

"How did you figure?"

"Duh , they either existed or not..."

AndrewB wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:Actually, you're both wrong.

If such a scenario ever happened, of which there is no proof, then the odds of it happening were 100%.

If it didn't happen, which is more likely, then the odds were 0%.

LOL, it is exactly same as that joke about the blond woman:

"What are the chances that the dinosaurs existed?"

"50-50", blond reply.

"How did you figure?"

"Duh , they either existed or not..."

Haha. Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of KLOBBER's grasp of probability.

why can't we all just realize that you are all picking up on certain parts of reality? The truth is that the "randomness" of these dice is artificial. as for the arguments about actualy dice, no, past rolls don't affect future rolls, however, it is mathematicaly proven that everything will even out (to a certain extent) given enough trials. very simple. I believe that falls under the "laws of large numbers". It's random and there for, it falls under the laws of statistics. now let this thread die.

And my final question, of corse, is: when are you going to realize klobber is just messing with your heads and being difficult?

Actually, they are messing with their own heads.

maniacmath17 wrote:

AndrewB wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:Actually, you're both wrong.

If such a scenario ever happened, of which there is no proof, then the odds of it happening were 100%.

If it didn't happen, which is more likely, then the odds were 0%.

LOL, it is exactly same as that joke about the blond woman:

"What are the chances that the dinosaurs existed?"

"50-50", blond reply.

"How did you figure?"

"Duh , they either existed or not..."

Haha. Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of KLOBBER's grasp of probability.

Actually, it's more like AndrewB's grasp, as he wrote it, not I.

KLOBBER wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:

KLOBBER wrote: 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.

Since the dice are designed to be unpredictable, and they are just that, they are perfect as they are.

Nobody knows beforehand what the chances are, since the dice are unpredictable, just as they are designed to be, and you have proven nothing but the fact that they are unpredictable. Thank you for your help; you've done a better job of this than any other dice complainer I've seen.

Your whole argument is based around the fact that the dice are designed to be unpredictable? Where are you getting this? From every source I have looked at, including lack's direct words, the goal is to have RANDOM dice. Why else would he get them from RANDOM.org?

I already addressed that issue. Scroll up.

Lol. You never addressed the issue. At no point do you give any verification of the claim that the dice are designed to be unpredictable. And since that's the basis for your whole argument, I think you should definitely give some sort of proof for this outrageous claim. Either show where the designers said the dice are designed to be unpredictable, or stop talking.

I already addressed that issue in this thread. You either failed to read it or you failed to comprehend it.

Do you think that they designed the dice to be predictable? You really do seem to think that.

If you do, then you have something seriously wrong with your brain.

In an effort to end this entire tirade:

The dice are completely unpredictable. You have no chance of predicting whether you're going to roll a 1 or a 6. However, statistically, you have a 16.6% chance of guessing correctly when attempting to predict the dice. There is no pattern, no cycle, nothing. The dice are essentially Pi (3.1415926535...) - never repeating.

The statistical anomalies that occur are living proof of this. 4 can beat 100. 100,000 can lose to 2. The chances are slim, but it is a probability. This probability cannot be predicted.

All good?

kiddicus maximus wrote:In an effort to end this entire tirade:

The dice are completely unpredictable. You have no chance of predicting whether you're going to roll a 1 or a 6. However, statistically, you have a 16.6% chance of guessing correctly when attempting to predict the dice. There is no pattern, no cycle, nothing. The dice are essentially Pi (3.1415926535...) - never repeating.

The statistical anomalies that occur are living proof of this. 4 can beat 100. 100,000 can lose to 2. The chances are slim, but it is a probability. This probability cannot be predicted.

All good?

Actually, that's pretty close!

It's great that you included the word "guessing," as that is precisely what every one of the dice complainers is doing, without exception, whether they imagine their guesses to be statistics, mathematics, or logic, or whatever word jugglery they may employ to delude themselves into believing that they're doing anything more than simply guessing (and badly). Whether their guesses involve more or fewer convolutions matters not; whether or not they attempt to employ for their guesses some ridiculous little cheating program matters not; it all boils down to an untidy and embarrassing mish-mash of incorrect, unintelligent, and unscientific guesses, each based on ignorant and faulty assumptions about how the CC dice work.

The fact that their guesses are always wrong proves at least two things irrefutably:

1. That the dice are indeed unpredictable, as they should be, and

2. that all of their various methods for guessing are flawed and unscientific.

I could point out that the percentage that you arbitrarily chose in that regard is also nothing more than another guess, but in the interests of coming to some kind of agreement with you, however tenuous, in regards to the dice complainers' seemingly unending pageant of incorrect guesses, I won't do that.

You did post a couple of definite falsehoods, though....

1. There is most certainly a pattern to the CC dice. It is not divulged to the players in specific detail before games are played out, so it remains unpredictable to the players, but there can be no denying that it is a static list of predetermined, non-random, unpredictable numbers.

Now, because it is definitely a predetermined, static list, there is a 100% likelihood of the first number on that list (in the exact same order on the static list as it previously appeared on the other site) appearing first on this site, and a 100% likelihood of the second number appearing second, and so on. Conversely, there is a 0% likelihood of the first number on the list not appearing first, &c. The dice complainers' failure to apprehend these facts is partially to blame for their confusion, fright, anger, and painfully extended and laughable "blowhard" type folly.

2. The dice are not "pi" by any stretch of the imagination. Pi is predictable, and the CC dice are not.

Those falsehoods aside, the rest of your post is the closest to reality, besides my posts, that has been written here so far.

KLOBBER wrote:
I already addressed that issue in this thread. You either failed to read it or you failed to comprehend it.

Do you think that they designed the dice to be predictable? You really do seem to think that.

If you do, then you have something seriously wrong with your brain.

Nope, definitely something wrong with yours though. I already told you, they want the dice to be RANDOM. RANDOM RANDOM RANDOM RANDOM. Can you get that through your skull? Nowhere did they ever say they wanted it to be "unpredictable." Yet you insist that that is what they want without any proof. If you really have already proved this fact, then surely it wouldn't be very hard to say it a 2nd time? Otherwise all you have is some ridiculous claim.

Here's my proof: Quote from lackattack: "The dice are now powered by random numbers from random.org. I won't go into the complicated details, but there may have been some "stickyness" to the dice that made them repeat themselves. This is just a theory and I'm not even sure if there was a problem. But the new dice are truly random and now I can safely ignore any complaints about them "

Now where is yours?