Board Game Arena

Ze Monstah wrote: ↑20 April 2021, 22:37

RicardoRix wrote: ↑20 April 2021, 20:26 This association is all in your head.

Is this a psychiatrist's professional point of view?
I am pretty familiar with your "opinions" and I do not agree with them (including this one).

This is just a logical assertion. No psychiatrist is required. By your response it's obvious that you just don't understand. Arguing is futile.

Most games involve some kind of RNG and because of this it is a required system that must work in order for BGA to function. Their livelihoods depend on it. Believe that the RNG has been rigorously tested far, far beyond the scope of analysing doubles in backgammon on a few select games.

The code for all games is all visible in BGA Studio as is the ability to test the RNG. Previously people have looked and no one has found any evidence of anything abnormal. You are welcome to do this as well.
I have a project that gives 100,000 numbers from the RNG, would you like a fresh batch to analyse?

Ze Monstah wrote: ↑21 April 2021, 05:27 And that there might be bugs or whatever in the part which was not made public (this is according to programmers, and not to me - when I was given the piece of algorithm from beneath, I first thought it was the complete thing, until some people told me it is not, and that the algorithm is bigger).

Please, PLEASE tell us who told you this? Is it written in the forum or do you have a PM? From a developers perspective, this is so obviously a complete code to generate two dice rolls, any addition to it (by that I mean any other manipulation of dice1_value or dice2_value) would immediately cause huge suspicion. To give you an example on how bold it is to tell a developer that this algorithm is not complete, it's like telling humans do not have 2 kidneys to medical staff.

Fortunately the code is openly available with a for free account of BGA Studio. https://en.studio.boardgamearena.com/ But nobody is going to check it on the basis of anonymous absurd objections.

(edit: this post if false, again :p)
Ty Ze Monstah,

So you did about 100 more games, you find those three games, none of them were 99+% unlikely :/
Game 165813080 (https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=165813080): 14/47 doubles: 98.7%
Game 165874452 (https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=165874452): 10/35 doubles: 96.1%
Game 165943746 (https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=165943746): 13/43 doubles: 98.6%

You have really not some great data for you here, which seem to compensate entierely the 27% from before which was low (even if not very low).

I did not read everything in this thread, but just some short remark from my side in response to the "13 out of 104" games.

You have included longer games and shorter games. In a short game the variance is higher, so 5(or more) doubles out of 15 rolls is not that extraordinary (1 in 10).

Still 13 out of 104 is above average (but nothing extraordinary) so if you have fun with it you can continue to increase your statistics. We will see if you will get to 130 "fishy games" out of 1000 or rather 80-100 out of 1000.

And you should define a threashhold for "fishiness", from your current example it seems to be around 28%. I would not be surprised if the mathematical chance of such games lies around 8% (difficult to determine, since many doubles influence the length of the game), you are at 13% at the moment.

Have fun!