Is next player’s roll what you would have rolled?

[frogstar_A]

always wonder if the next player getting the number I needed meant I’d quit too soon.

From a mathematical point of view it's just wrong to judge a move AFTER the RNG applies.

I'll make an example to explain: let's say you are in a situation where you have the chance to gamble 10$, if you win you double your money, if you lose you lose it all. The odds of winning are 40%. Accepting the gamble is just plain wrong, the expected value of your bet is -2$. It doesn't matter if then you win, the choice was wrong.

Can't stop is a bit more complicated than this because even if evaluating the chance of failing is not too hard, it's a lot more difficult to judge the expected value of a move, but the same principles apply: if u were able to perfectly estimate that, any move can be considered right or wrong regardless of its result. This means I wouldn't care about what was the possible result of the last roll u never took, or blame yourself for taking the roll that made you waste the progress of the turn, just focus on making the best choices BEFORE the roll, anything that happens after the roll just doesn't matter and shouldn't affect in any way your judgement about the choice.

I hope it is clear, english is not my native language

I disagree it is wrong

It's not always wrong to take that bet, it just has a negative expected value

What if I need $20 for a train fare home? If I don't gamble I have to walk. If I gamble and lose I have to walk. But if I win I the train

[ExaltedAngel]

I disagree it is wrong

It's not always wrong to take that bet, it just has a negative expected value

What if I need $20 for a train fare home? If I don't gamble I have to walk. If I gamble and lose I have to walk. But if I win I the train

True, makes sense, I was talking from a strictly financial point of view which is measurable, then there could be a lot of other things affecting the choice. This is not the case of zero-sum games tho

[wschwa]

As a game developer both front-end and back-end, I can tell you what I know about how random numbers are implemented:

BGA is unlikely to have a single RNG sitewide. If that part of the code failed it would ruin all games simultaneously that rely on it. There could also be risk of a bottleneck if too many games ask for a random number simultaneously. It is unlikely that there is a single server on the back-end also and are probably dozens of them. Sharing a single RNG amongst all servers would not be a reasonable approach. It is also not reproducible for debugging purposes.

It is also unlikely that a RNG would be seeded each time any game asked for a random number. That would be bad programming practice and is not how things are done.

The most likely approach would be to create a RNG for each game instance and seed it once (with a DateTime value) at the start of the game. This would produce a repeatable sequence of values and would help the developers debug their games. It is also in keeping with the spirit of how many games operate (shuffling a deck cards, or an ordered stack of anything. etc.) In this scenario the answer to the OP's question would be YES! Your roll and the next player's roll would have been identical.