Board Game Arena

Where do these stats come from?

As of today, on game statistics, for all players, obtaining /!\ on dices with 1 /!\ are evaluated at 15.49%. For dices with 2 /!\, it's 29.23%.

In this game there is no randomness on the dice.
Curiously, since I have written ALL the games (except one) I have had an incredible "bad luck".
For me this game is VERY tricky.

Do people understand that is MUCH MORE COMPLEX creating a slighlty rigged game than using the common random functions?

If you think dice are rigged and that some IA is reading your post and managing your luck, you may be a bit egocentric.

If you can't (under)stand randomness, don't play games with dice.

If you want to watch an interesting video about randomness, look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP-Ipsat90c
People do not do well in predicting random sequences.

I did some analysis on the BGA RNG, 500,000 samples of each function, you can see the results here.

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 1&start=10

If the runs were really random, there would be no problems.
The problem is that they are not. Interestingly, there is always some form of compensation.
In one game, point the red dice and 66.66% came out (thanks to the "randomness" of the last roll, if it hadn't been 77%. And if the game had continued, surely I won't get one more, right?).
Anyway, will I be selfish? Surely yes. If the results I get were the opposite, I would be delighted. It would be No. 1 in the ranking. But the problem would be the same.

RicardoRix wrote: ↑03 July 2020, 10:45 I did some analysis on the BGA RNG, 500,000 samples of each function, you can see the results here.

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 1&start=10

Just looked at your article but as I’m not a maths professor it makes no sense to me. Do you mind explaining your conclusion in layman’s language. Thanks

I'm not a maths professor either, but naysayers were asking for evidence. If you want to do statistical analysis then these are the tools for the job. If you look at the correlation figures, then those numbers look pretty good to me.

When you say pretty good, you mean the randomisation on BGA is legit?

Heezdad wrote: ↑13 July 2020, 13:18 When you say pretty good, you mean the randomisation on BGA is legit?

Yes, there is no evidence to the contrary.

If you want another 5000 numbers then the program is still there on BGA Studio.