More On Roll Probability

Forum rules
Please DO NOT POST BUGS on this forum. Please report (and vote) bugs on : https://boardgamearena.com/#!bugs
User avatar
N_Faker
Posts: 631
Joined: 09 September 2016, 10:16

Re: More On Roll Probability

Post by N_Faker » 31 July 2020, 20:13

Jest Phulin wrote:
31 July 2020, 19:31
2) Thanks for calling half a century "young".
Your pigtails bring out your youthful appearance, it certainly fools me.

User avatar
Jest Phulin
Posts: 1202
Joined: 08 July 2013, 21:50

Re: More On Roll Probability

Post by Jest Phulin » 31 July 2020, 20:51

N_Faker wrote:
31 July 2020, 20:13

Your pigtails bring out your youthful appearance, it certainly fools me.
Bad image, apparently. That's my fool's cap.

User avatar
shadowphiar
Posts: 55
Joined: 01 January 2017, 16:07

Re: More On Roll Probability

Post by shadowphiar » 02 August 2020, 15:19

SluggerBaloney wrote:
31 July 2020, 16:02
Again, your argument is predicated on the false belief that I am trying to convince you of something. I don't care what you or anyone else believe
Your first post in this thread literally offered advice to the original poster that they should play the game in a way that exploits a broken PRNG. Of course you are trying to convince us that the PRNG here is broken.

FWIW I do not think PRNGs are magic, but I also think that just because the P stands for pseudo does not in itself mean that the generated sequence is biased in any meaningful way. However there are, of course, ways that PRNGs can be misused (resetting the seed too often, or to a discoverable value) and it's also just about possible that calculating pairs of results from 1-6 might have measurably different characteristics than calculating single results from 1-36. If it turns out that either of these is the cause of a problem, then it can, and certainly should, be fixed! But it is impossible to start that investigation without adequate data. The notion of collecting such data and citing it in discussion, yet throwing it away without showing anybody, is baffling to me.

User avatar
SluggerBaloney
Posts: 26
Joined: 07 February 2020, 14:26

Re: More On Roll Probability

Post by SluggerBaloney » 06 August 2020, 04:25

but I also think that just because the P stands for pseudo does not in itself mean that the generated sequence is biased in any meaningful way.
Of course you don't. Which is why I don't bother getting into it with folks like you. Cause you never will. It's like debating an anti vaxxer. Absolutely no science, no data, no evidence, no information will sway you from your beliefs, so why would I bother? I could show you 100 rolls, you would say that's to little, I could show you 1000 rolls, you would sy hats to little, I could show you a million rolls, you would say I recorded them wrong, etc etc.

There's no "debate" with true believers. That's why I don't get into it. I got the answer and am fine not playing an obviously broken game. If you want to believe it's all kosher, go right ahead.

User avatar
Jest Phulin
Posts: 1202
Joined: 08 July 2013, 21:50

Re: More On Roll Probability

Post by Jest Phulin » 06 August 2020, 04:40

SluggerBaloney wrote:
06 August 2020, 04:25
I could show you 100 rolls, you would say that's to little, I could show you 1000 rolls, you would sy hats to little, I could show you a million rolls, you would say I recorded them wrong, etc etc.
How about you show us the 1200 that you have claimed? The verifiable data that has been always asked for?

Anti-vaxxers stereotypically disregard evidence that's been presented. The community supporting the RNG has been stating that if there is data showing otherwise, please show it.

So far, we have not been swayed from our beliefs because no meaningful data has been presented. What has been presented has been an analysis of the results created by an independent PHP program, cherry-picked logs of a few runs of numbers, and limited results of a study that can't be verified.


-----
Edit: Actually, of all the people in this thread, the one stating "I've done my own research and that's good enough for me, and I don't need to listen to anything else" sounds most like an anti-vaxxer....
Last edited by Jest Phulin on 06 August 2020, 20:15, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
N_Faker
Posts: 631
Joined: 09 September 2016, 10:16

Re: More On Roll Probability

Post by N_Faker » 06 August 2020, 05:06

Jest Phulin wrote:
06 August 2020, 04:40
How about you show us the 1200 that you have claimed? The verifiable data that has been always asked for?
The offending scripture has already been cleansed.
SluggerBaloney wrote:
24 July 2020, 20:26
I am unwilling to share the data because A: I don't have it anymore since I was done with it and B: No amount of data is good enough for the true believers
Tabulam, Ludo et Harena. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

User avatar
Een
Posts: 2785
Joined: 16 June 2010, 19:52

Re: More On Roll Probability

Post by Een » 06 August 2020, 09:23

SluggerBaloney wrote:
06 August 2020, 04:25
I got the answer and am fine not playing an obviously broken game.
This claim is demonstrably false. Your game history is visible and you are playing the game. You are even Elite status :roll:

User avatar
aesche
Posts: 80
Joined: 06 April 2020, 02:31

Re: More On Roll Probability

Post by aesche » 06 August 2020, 13:22

Just a troll, longing for the cheering from some spammers that have no clue about probability. Not worth to be feeded / given attention further...
In the same manner, I‘ll say I analysed every game ever played on BGA. The result shows that the algorithm is alright along the expectations with probability. Bu since she wont be willing to accept any analysis anyway, I deleted it already again.

Which is a pitty, because I‘d been pretty willing to believe that there are issues, also with the card shuffler, but if that‘s the level of discussion possible here... *shrug*

User avatar
SluggerBaloney
Posts: 26
Joined: 07 February 2020, 14:26

Re: More On Roll Probability

Post by SluggerBaloney » 10 August 2020, 03:38

Een wrote:
06 August 2020, 09:23
SluggerBaloney wrote:
06 August 2020, 04:25
I got the answer and am fine not playing an obviously broken game.
This claim is demonstrably false. Your game history is visible and you are playing the game. You are even Elite status :roll:
That isn't me. Other's use this PC. I haven't play in ages, why would I?
Just a troll, longing for the cheering from some spammers that have no clue about probability.
Gee, I wonder why I don't want to get involved with people like this in a debate on the topic? It's such a mystery ....
Which is a pitty, because I‘d been pretty willing to believe that there are issues, also with the card shuffler, but if that‘s the level of discussion possible here... *shrug*
The card shuffler would have the same flaws since both use the same broken PRNG code.

User avatar
Jest Phulin
Posts: 1202
Joined: 08 July 2013, 21:50

Re: More On Roll Probability

Post by Jest Phulin » 10 August 2020, 19:10

SluggerBaloney wrote:
10 August 2020, 03:38
Een wrote:
06 August 2020, 09:23
SluggerBaloney wrote:
06 August 2020, 04:25
I got the answer and am fine not playing an obviously broken game.
This claim is demonstrably false. Your game history is visible and you are playing the game. You are even Elite status :roll:
That isn't me. Other's use this PC. I haven't play in ages, why would I?
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=106097432
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=106091322
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=106092902
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=106094941
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=105729497

The only explanation of it not being "you" that played, but rather someone on your PC, is that you don't understand how website logins work. For someone who claims to know so much about how computers work to find inherent fault in PRNGs, it's amazing you don't understand the basic concepts of logging in and logging out.

You have either made demonstrably false claims, or demonstrated a severe lack of understanding in the topic.

Post Reply

Return to “Can't Stop”