...
Posted: 23 February 2020, 15:19
Page 1 of 20
Re: "dubious" luck
Posted: 23 February 2020, 23:32
This has been discussed many times before.
The human mind is very poor at determining what is random, and seeks to find patterns and "meanings" behind everything. It also applies greater importance to bad situations than to good ones. Therefore, someone is more likely to notice and remember the one time an opponent rolled the 4-1 needed to attack their only unprotected blots, but fail to remember the three times they themselves did it.
If you truly believe that the volunteer programmer took the extra time to create an AI to determine what a good roll to receive would be and then set that roll for a certain group of people, there is a straightforward way to prove it. Every game can be replayed. Do a statistical analysis of what rolls were received when. If something is happening, the statistics will show it.
---------------------
Actually, speaking of statistics.... https://boardgamearena.com/playerstat?i ... 59&game=53
You have fewer blots your opponent hit and fewer times you could not play than the winners of the games do. You also have more doubles rolled and more blots you hit than the average player. If anything is biased, it looks like it is biased towards you rather than away from you.
----------
Edit. Or, y'know, you might have upset a god, who is now influencing the rolls. But solving that is beyond what BGA can help with.
The human mind is very poor at determining what is random, and seeks to find patterns and "meanings" behind everything. It also applies greater importance to bad situations than to good ones. Therefore, someone is more likely to notice and remember the one time an opponent rolled the 4-1 needed to attack their only unprotected blots, but fail to remember the three times they themselves did it.
If you truly believe that the volunteer programmer took the extra time to create an AI to determine what a good roll to receive would be and then set that roll for a certain group of people, there is a straightforward way to prove it. Every game can be replayed. Do a statistical analysis of what rolls were received when. If something is happening, the statistics will show it.
---------------------
Actually, speaking of statistics.... https://boardgamearena.com/playerstat?i ... 59&game=53
You have fewer blots your opponent hit and fewer times you could not play than the winners of the games do. You also have more doubles rolled and more blots you hit than the average player. If anything is biased, it looks like it is biased towards you rather than away from you.
Code: Select all
Ze Monstah average All players average Winners average
Thinking time 139.19 min 19163.74 min 17127.14 min
Time bonus number 24.99 25.37 25.62
Reflexion time standard deviation 4.27 1081.01 794.95
Pip count 0.04 10.42 0
Dice rolls 25.47 25.73 25.98
Double rolls 4.3 4.23 4.53
Blots you hit 2.94 2.86 3.26
Blots your opponent hit 2.22 2.86 2.46
Times you could not play 1.04 1.85 1.11
Checkers borne off 14.96 11.81 15
Checkers in home board 0.04 3.07 0
Checkers in outer board 0 0.09 0
Checkers in opponent's outer board 0 0.03 0
Checkers in opponent's home board 0 0.01 0----------
Edit. Or, y'know, you might have upset a god, who is now influencing the rolls. But solving that is beyond what BGA can help with.
...
Posted: 07 March 2020, 20:06
Re: "dubious" luck
Posted: 08 March 2020, 04:46
So this flaw does not give any preferential treatment towards certain users? So it is random, just not the kind of random you think it should be?Ze Monstah wrote: ↑07 March 2020, 20:06 I did not say someone intentionally made a program to mess things up or to help CERTAIN players, but i only said the things are NOT OK with this site's Number Generating System! (I texted the one who created it, but with no answer yet).
...
Posted: 08 March 2020, 08:16
Re: "dubious" luck
Posted: 08 March 2020, 19:27
OK, if this is from a purely analytical point of view, and not a sore loser point of view, my original statement remains: Analyze the games (they're available for replay), and present clear proof that what you claim is happening.
You are making the claim that something is "wrong" with the random number generator. You therefore have the burden of proof. It should not be that hard for you to substantiate your claim if it is, in fact, real.
I'll even tell you how to do it:
Your most prevalent discrete claim is that you are presented with a 6-6 just after being taken out.
Select about 75 games (to make sure the sample size is large enough). Make sure to list which games you selected, so others can see that it is a representative sample, and not cherry-picking the ones that fit your agenda. [I'd suggest consecutive game numbers.] With 2.8 blots being hit per player per game, this should give just over 360 blots being hit.
Show the significantly more than 10 times that, after either person has had a blot hit, the next roll was an unusable 6-6.
Include the counts of how many time that after either person had a blot hit, a double (non 6-6) was rolled. This number should be significantly less than 5 times the number of 6-6s rolled.
Additionally, it would be helpful if you could provide some names of the others that think like you do, since you are "not the only one who thinks this". Otherwise you are trying to defend your position with something worse than hearsay, inadmissible in most modern courts.
As far as your comment of how many times in real life I get doubles after rolling doubles? I'll admit I haven't kept detailed records, but I think it's about 1 in 6 times...
You are making the claim that something is "wrong" with the random number generator. You therefore have the burden of proof. It should not be that hard for you to substantiate your claim if it is, in fact, real.
I'll even tell you how to do it:
Your most prevalent discrete claim is that you are presented with a 6-6 just after being taken out.
Select about 75 games (to make sure the sample size is large enough). Make sure to list which games you selected, so others can see that it is a representative sample, and not cherry-picking the ones that fit your agenda. [I'd suggest consecutive game numbers.] With 2.8 blots being hit per player per game, this should give just over 360 blots being hit.
Show the significantly more than 10 times that, after either person has had a blot hit, the next roll was an unusable 6-6.
Include the counts of how many time that after either person had a blot hit, a double (non 6-6) was rolled. This number should be significantly less than 5 times the number of 6-6s rolled.
Additionally, it would be helpful if you could provide some names of the others that think like you do, since you are "not the only one who thinks this". Otherwise you are trying to defend your position with something worse than hearsay, inadmissible in most modern courts.
As far as your comment of how many times in real life I get doubles after rolling doubles? I'll admit I haven't kept detailed records, but I think it's about 1 in 6 times...
Re: "dubious" luck
Posted: 08 March 2020, 21:34
How RNG is handled on BGA is described here:
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 2&start=10
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 2&start=10
...
Posted: 08 March 2020, 23:11
...
Posted: 08 March 2020, 23:17
...
Posted: 09 March 2020, 05:13