More On Roll Probability

[nmego]

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

Anyone can just come in and say what you said and then just say I don't have it anymore because reasons.

(A) I highly doubt that anyone would throw away such vital data they used to backup such an important argument. Why do you expect us to believe you if you have no data/evidence?

(B) That doesn't make any sense, why?
Because you haven't supplied any major data at all.
Therefore you couldn't confirm your claim that the people you're talking to, won't believe your claims no matter how much data you provide.

I'm pretty sure there are some logical fallacies in (A) and (B).

Here's the gist of it, if you want your arguments to be accepted, you have to provide data or evidence.

[Jest Phulin]

I do not believe that it is infallible because "computers." I fully understand that programs are designed to do the exact same thing in the exact same way every time, so given the same initial seed a pseudo-random number generating program will produce the same series of pseudo-random numbers.

But that's not an issue on this site.

Your article on the poker sites (assuming it is the same article you linked earlier) makes it very clear on where the problem was: the ability to find the seed. The code was published, including the randomize() line to generate the seed. That seed is the number of milliseconds since midnight, which reduced the possibility to one of 86,400,000 numbers. Narrowing the search to reasonable server clock times limited it even more, allowing for a faster search of possible seeds.

I fully understand that.

So, the question becomes, can the seed for a particular game on BGA be found? If so, then it should be no problem to achieve the top ranking in Can't Stop, Yahtzee, Perudo, or any other game where dice play an important part. Especially so for Can't Stop, as you can always press your "luck" and never stop until you know the next roll would be a bust.

A cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator, though, makes it infeasible to find the seed.


Yes, I have faith that, for the purposes of enjoying the game, the RNG works well enough. I have yet to see any data to suggest otherwise.

If verifiable data is presented that shows that certain numbers are being generated at a higher rate than probability mechanics says they would, it is a bug. Either a bug that BGA can fix in the Can't Stop code, or a bug with random_int() or a bug with getrandom() that the PHP and Linux community would be very interested in finding out about.

[SluggerBaloney]

Deleted

[nmego]

Your entire argument is predicated on one false assumption: That I give a crap about your or anyone else's opinion. I examined the data and got a result. I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks about that. It's not my job to crusade on the internet trying to convince of something you will never accept anyway, for no reason. You know the line about rolling in the mud with pigs.

Right, fair enough. Too bad, there have been many threads complaining about this, and there will probably be in the future, you could've just stopped that entire topic by a well-crafted argument supplied by data and evidence. I have seen no evidence that the people in this site that you've argued with, would've ignored such an argument. They've literally been asking for data all day. Yet nothing has been supplied.

It will probably consume a lot of time and effort though, so that's a thing. There's nothing more to argue about.

Here's the gist of it, if you want your arguments to be accepted, you have to provide data or evidence.

Hilarious that I am the one who needs to provide evidence for my claim, while your claim is just "accepted as truth". Gee, I wonder why I don't take people like you seriously?

I never said that I absolutely 100% trust this site in terms of its RNG system.
I never even claimed that this site's RNG system is accurate.
What I said was, in order to make a convincing case that this site's RNG system is flawed. You'd have to provide data and evidence.
I even supplied, in this same thread, data that shows some slight skew. It is not enough to convince me that the RNG system is messed up (only 100 rolls), but it piques my interest to maybe make a script that would do this on like 100k rolls or something and see if anything comes up. For the record, I don't even think the 1200 rolls you've made are enough.
To me, I'm not sure about this site's RNG, on one side, many people complained, on the other, no actual evidence has been presented, and there's also some psychology effects and survivorship bias to consider. Having data would solve the problem, I think. Also, I do find it rather unsettling that the BGA team are completely ignoring this topic.
Unless you're talking about another claim I made? It is hard to figure out which "claim" you're talking about without saying which one it is.

[Jest Phulin]

trying to convince of something you will never accept anyway, for no reason.

Please provide quotes of people who have stated that they will not accept proof. I can probably match them with quotes of other people who have said please show the data.




And, please, before you respond with "show the data that the RNG actually works", realize that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that goes against the established way of thinking, not the person supporting it. In the 1500's, suggesting a heliocentric model required showing data. Today, suggesting a geocentric model would require the proof.

[Jest Phulin]

Also, I do find it rather unsettling that the BGA team are completely ignoring this topic.

I think that they have seen it too often in the past, and it has resulted in the same way each time. Someone makes a claim that the RNG is flawed; people ask for proof and show how the limited data* presented actually fits into reasonable expectations of randomness; topic dies.

*In this instance, "limited data" is generally less than 3 complete games, or picking out bits and pieces of data that support their claim without including any other data.

[N_Faker]

Also, I do find it rather unsettling that the BGA team are completely ignoring this topic.

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 12&t=13097

If the stats seem to suggest correct randomness yet some users still claim that it doesn't. What more could be said?

[dschingis27]

Also this: https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... and#p59122
Evidence the way it should be.

[SluggerBaloney]

Deleted

[Jest Phulin]

Again, your argument is predicated on the false belief that I am trying to convince you of something.

Oh, silly me. Thinking the several posts that you made are for your own enjoyment. That the sources you quote are not to support any claim you are making.

And being dismissive over peoples concerns isn't helpful.

Uh, there isn't really more to add to this...

Young people these days. Thinking that being on social media means everyone else craves your agreement with them.

Two bits.
1) Be wary of shifting to an ad hominem argument.
2) Thanks for calling half a century "young".