Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
Random # Generation Error?
|
Transitional_Mil wrote
at 1:13 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST
Over the past week or so, I have noticed that a very high percentage of 8v8 rolls contain adjacent doublings of dice scores. For example:
gunsnbombs's turn Kaio defeated 8v8: 29 to 25 (4,4,5,4,2,6,1,3 to 5,1,4,1,2,1,6,5) Kaio defended 8v8: 20 to 24 (1,5,3,2,1,4,2,2 to 2,2,1,6,2,2,4,5) 2fast's turn jacobsladder defeated 8v7: 23 to 17 (5,5,2,1,2,5,2,1 to 1,1,6,1,3,4,1) jacobsladder defeated 7v5: 26 to 18 (5,5,2,1,3,6,4 to 1,3,2,6,6) jacobsladder's turn 2fast defeated 8v8: 37 to 28 (6,5,5,6,4,4,3,4 to 6,6,1,4,3,4,1,3) Kaio's turn 2fast defeated 8v8: 34 to 31 (6,4,3,3,3,4,6,5 to 6,6,2,6,1,4,3,3) 2fast's turn jacobsladder defeated 8v8: 32 to 26 (1,6,1,5,6,6,6,1 to 6,4,5,1,5,2,2,1) Of these these 14 rolls (1 each for offense and defence), all but 1 contained at least one instance of adjacent doubling. Is this something that should happen statistically, or is it a possible bug in the random number generator? I have seen myriad examples of this tendency toward doubling. Any thoughts? |
|
no_Wolf wrote
at 4:04 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST Semagon might have it.
Of course, there's still: "Or that big a deal. Now, if an extra pair of sixes showed up on every roll players 3 and 5 make, that may be a problem. " If there is something, it doesn't seemed to be biased towards any player. |
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 4:04 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST Argh, Semagon bet me to it while I was typing ;-)
|
|
|
no_Wolf wrote
at 4:05 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST "damn you no wolf! "
:P |
|
|
Transitional_Mil wrote
at 4:05 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST Thank you too fuzzycat. You got the right answer too, although it took you longer than Semagon!
Grade = A- |
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 4:07 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST Transitional_Milk>
"Instances of doubling = 17/24 = 71% " Theoretical probability = 72% There you see how well the random generator works!!! ;-) |
|
|
Transitional_Mil wrote
at 4:08 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST It has been 6 or 7 years since I dealt with any statistics, so I hope you'll all forgive my confusion. Thanks to all for helping me out!
|
|
|
Transitional_Mil wrote
at 4:09 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST Well, my first forum post generated some intelligent dialogue...at least I only had to sacrifice my intellectual reputation. :)
|
|
Semagon wrote
at 4:10 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST Just don't ask about two pair, that'd be a bit more complicated ;)
|
|
|
Transitional_Mil wrote
at 4:13 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST The sad thing is, I have a degree in physics, and could proably just gone into one of my old textbooks to figure it out. Guess it was a good choice to pursue a career in music instead!
|
|
|
Semagon wrote
at 4:17 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST I don't know, probability doesn't really show up in physics unless you're doing QM, no?
It's interesting when looking at that backgammon page that the chances of rolling at least one 6 with 7 dice is also "only" 72% Basically the same math, just that you do care about the first die now. So seeing no 6s with a 7 stack, while seemingly absurdly rare (and sure to cause an uproar), isn't so suprising. |
