So I've been playing this game a fair amount lately. My results were pretty decent, but up and down. At best I was top 10 in elo at 430ish and first in arena, at worst I was 170 and 2000+. (That was noted just so that my claims won't be classified as ranting just because I'm bad lol) Sometimes this game can be frustrating, but then I knew a clever selection of move choices can win most games of even luck (mine is 60~70%).
Now everyone has good and bad days, but browsing through a particular forum discussion about the source code had me started observing what 4 die I roll each round. While I don't have any statistical approach by any means, nor do I have even the slightest understanding of coding, I do think that three of a kind is being rolled way more often than its calculated probability indicates. As well as the chances of rolling two pairs. Well, actually, I see those two situations appear more than rolling 4 completely different numbers (which isn't easy, but should be easier than those two). Sure, I can very well ignore that, but then I believe an uneven distribution on probability makes games slightly more in favour to overly cautious players. i.e. In a game where I somehow keep rolling three of a kinds or pairs consisting of 1s or 6s (see, they happen more than I would like), that makes it hard to make a comeback even when my opponent is turtling his way through. At the end of the day, I don't really mind losing, but as I look to play competitively, I do mind losing randomly to unrefined strategies.
To further note, while I was on a terrible streak, I experimented with the rule posted here: http://www.taterenner.com/cantstop.php
His playing method is based on expected loss and expected gain, which not only factors probability alone but also multiplied by profit and turns made. That's the same as the casino rule, meaning that following such rules in the long run should result in a net gain, and that's why casinos and banks and the lottery hardly ever lose money. So if you take too little moves, you're making undervalue plays, and you should be losing more than you win. If you go too far, then in the long run you should be failing to win as well. I tried following the strictly in the first 2 to 3 rounds exclusively when there isn't pressure from the opponent, and, well got stuck in 200 elo and 1450+ EAS. Then I reverted back to my unanalysed strategy that brought me to top 50 and guess what, that works. (Of course I'm not writing down my climbing strategy lol.)
What I wanted to ask was, has anyone observed such patterns in dice rolling? Obviously the most important thing is to have fun, but a bit of discussion to become better can't be distasteful...right?
Now everyone has good and bad days, but browsing through a particular forum discussion about the source code had me started observing what 4 die I roll each round. While I don't have any statistical approach by any means, nor do I have even the slightest understanding of coding, I do think that three of a kind is being rolled way more often than its calculated probability indicates. As well as the chances of rolling two pairs. Well, actually, I see those two situations appear more than rolling 4 completely different numbers (which isn't easy, but should be easier than those two). Sure, I can very well ignore that, but then I believe an uneven distribution on probability makes games slightly more in favour to overly cautious players. i.e. In a game where I somehow keep rolling three of a kinds or pairs consisting of 1s or 6s (see, they happen more than I would like), that makes it hard to make a comeback even when my opponent is turtling his way through. At the end of the day, I don't really mind losing, but as I look to play competitively, I do mind losing randomly to unrefined strategies.
To further note, while I was on a terrible streak, I experimented with the rule posted here: http://www.taterenner.com/cantstop.php
His playing method is based on expected loss and expected gain, which not only factors probability alone but also multiplied by profit and turns made. That's the same as the casino rule, meaning that following such rules in the long run should result in a net gain, and that's why casinos and banks and the lottery hardly ever lose money. So if you take too little moves, you're making undervalue plays, and you should be losing more than you win. If you go too far, then in the long run you should be failing to win as well. I tried following the strictly in the first 2 to 3 rounds exclusively when there isn't pressure from the opponent, and, well got stuck in 200 elo and 1450+ EAS. Then I reverted back to my unanalysed strategy that brought me to top 50 and guess what, that works. (Of course I'm not writing down my climbing strategy lol.)
What I wanted to ask was, has anyone observed such patterns in dice rolling? Obviously the most important thing is to have fun, but a bit of discussion to become better can't be distasteful...right?
