doubles in Castles of burgundy

[robinzig]

but since we live in a deterministic world...

I love just seeing people throwing *highly controversial and contested* statements out there as if they're undisputed fact [But happily at least this time it's something philosphical/intellectual of little significance to our everyday lives, not something attempting to prove a point about politics or society etc.]

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with you that, at the deepest levels, the universe is indeed deterministic - but I would never dream of stating it as a fact. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that:
- we have no real scientific evidence in favour of determinism
- we have plenty of scientific evidence that points in the other direction entirely (look up the fundamentals of quantum mechanics if you don't know it already)
- if the universe is indeed completely deterministic then it puts all human ideas of morality in great doubt, after all it means any acts of mass murder, and plenty of other less-serious-but-still-deeply-morally-repulsive things, are in a real sense "pretermined" and therefore not the "fault" of any of those who participated in them (who rather take on the role of mindless automatons). [Since I stated early that I am - purely personally and philosophically - inclined to believe in physical determinism, I will add that I personally respond to these dilemmas, like most who share this belief, by saying that even if free will is an illusion, we should act as if it's not. But I can also recognise that as the sweeping-under-the-carpet that it fundamentally is!]

[tbhp]

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with you that, at the deepest levels, the universe is indeed deterministic - but I would never dream of stating it as a fact.

I agree with that, though even if it is not deterministic, we are still powerless to spot natural phenomenons that are truly random, or invent systems that are truly random. So the application to board games will remain imperfect no matter what, at least in our current understanding of science.

- if the universe is indeed completely deterministic then it puts all human ideas of morality in great doubt, after all it means any acts of mass murder, and plenty of other less-serious-but-still-deeply-morally-repulsive things, are in a real sense "pretermined" and therefore not the "fault" of any of those who participated in them (who rather take on the role of mindless automatons).

Well since the alternative to determinism would be randomness, that doesn't seem to bode any better for free will. Instead of being automatons, we would just be unpredictable beings. But like you say, the illusion of free will is what matters from our perspective as humans.

The idea that we are not actually in control of anything is not exactly revolutionary. After all, we are all aware we never chose to be born as the person we are. But that hardly prevents us from living our lives.

[FrankJones]

I've brought this up several times but nothing has been done.

What exactly is it that you want done?

[SiRan90]

I've brought this up several times but nothing has been done.

What exactly is it that you want done?

Let's ban doubles ever happening

[lefalaf]

I've brought this up several times but nothing has been done.

What exactly is it that you want done?

Let's ban doubles ever happening

The whole premise of the OP is strange. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the benefit or detriment of doubles in this game highly situational?

[FrankJones]

Probably, since the winners' average for doubles is lower than the overall average.

I take that to mean doubles are sometimes bad. Or possibly always bad.

But given that the overall frequency of doubles is slightly lower than expected, I was wondering whether the OP wanted BGA to do something about that and increase the overall frequency of doubles, or just to decrease the OP's frequency of doubles.

[lefalaf]

Probably, since the winners' average for doubles is lower than the overall average.

True, but is 3 per 1,000 rolls (or 1 per 40 games) significant enough?

I take that to mean doubles are sometimes bad. Or possibly always bad.

Maybe. It depends on what you want to collect around the board or what slots on your player board need to be filled next. That more depends on getting a subset of specific numbers, which may require both to be the same, or both different. I will grant that non-doubles will give higher odds of getting one of your desired numbers, but you need to maximize the benefit from both to do the best. A good player, IMO, would leave themselves enough flexibility to take advantage of any rolls. Although, some would still be more efficient and helpful. So, maybe it matters a touch, but a good player is going to win most of the time regardless of the rolls, in this game. Some other high-luck dice games, not so much.

But given that the overall frequency of doubles is slightly lower than expected, I was wondering whether the OP wanted BGA to do something about that and increase the overall frequency of doubles, or just to decrease the OP's frequency of doubles.

I will message BGA to request OP to ONLY get doubles in this game from here on out.

[FrankJones]

I looked at the stats for Yahtzee rolls and they all seem very close. Though, with 17 million games, I'm unsure of the probability that even the small differences would occur. I'm too lazy to do the math. Or I just don't care enough.

The rigged dice Yahtzee thread is 21 pages.

[Meeplelowda]

Came here thinking this was a rules question or something. But nope, it's another one of these threads....

[JimBut]

since we live in a deterministic world, probably nothing is truly random

I think this is a much more narrow usage of the word random than most people use, to the point of making the word useless, and I think you're just arguing semantics. For the purposes of a board game site computer functions are random enough