I have read all the topic since I find that the phenomenon of supposedly biased online dices is recurrent in every platform.
I do not think that BGA biases their dice system just to boost some categories of players instead of others, it would be pointless and, honestly, boring.
It is true that numbers generated by a computer are not fully random and, depending on the technology used, they can present variations but these variations would hit both players, therefore even in that case the game at the end would remain fair (moreover variations would be so slight that I think that would be detectable only by collecting a huge quantity of data).
What I have read about players who systematically get big points at the right moment, on the other hand, triggered my scientific side and I had fun in doing some maths (ok... ok...) to calculate the odds as a function of the situation trying to identify some playing patterns.
Obviously, there are some moves that are better than others in each situation and applying consistently a statistical strategy leads having more often higher results (one over all, when you have on first roll AABBC going for the full has a rough 55% of chance on two rolls).
I think that the phenomenon of the superplayer who always has the right roll at the right moment is therefore a combination of experience and luck which appears very odd if someone plays in "gut feeling mode" but that remains perfectly understandable with a more objective view.
I am curious to know if anybody has every studied a yahtzee game with a statistical approach, it would be interesting to see how good players select their moves with a statistical eye.
I do not think that BGA biases their dice system just to boost some categories of players instead of others, it would be pointless and, honestly, boring.
It is true that numbers generated by a computer are not fully random and, depending on the technology used, they can present variations but these variations would hit both players, therefore even in that case the game at the end would remain fair (moreover variations would be so slight that I think that would be detectable only by collecting a huge quantity of data).
What I have read about players who systematically get big points at the right moment, on the other hand, triggered my scientific side and I had fun in doing some maths (ok... ok...) to calculate the odds as a function of the situation trying to identify some playing patterns.
Obviously, there are some moves that are better than others in each situation and applying consistently a statistical strategy leads having more often higher results (one over all, when you have on first roll AABBC going for the full has a rough 55% of chance on two rolls).
I think that the phenomenon of the superplayer who always has the right roll at the right moment is therefore a combination of experience and luck which appears very odd if someone plays in "gut feeling mode" but that remains perfectly understandable with a more objective view.
I am curious to know if anybody has every studied a yahtzee game with a statistical approach, it would be interesting to see how good players select their moves with a statistical eye.
