Also, fundamental attribution error and perception bias apply. People notice games where there are extremes of luck, and when there aren't, they likely attribute their losses to "bad luck" as opposed to their own skill. They tend to forget about the games where luck seems pretty even on both sides. So it feels like the bad luck situations happen more than they really do. As people have said on these threads before, you need to keep a consistent track of what happens over the course of MANY games. Start with 20. Observe ALL of them, not just anecdotally the ones you remember as being bad. If 20 show a pattern of luck, keep going. See where you get to after 100 games. OK, now we might be seeing the start of something. Though even at that point, you still need a LOT more data for your sample to be valid. But generally, people aren't willing to track it properly. They just go on vibes.
As to why they don't join existing threads? Sometimes they do. It doesn't really matter. They still say the same stuff about how random is not random because their game didn't follow a perfect bell curve in terms of its dice distribution.
As to why they don't join existing threads? Sometimes they do. It doesn't really matter. They still say the same stuff about how random is not random because their game didn't follow a perfect bell curve in terms of its dice distribution.
