Are the dice rigged?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ค. 2024
- I get why people get suspicious of random results, and intellectually I can see why that leads to conspiracy theories - but conspiracy theories are still dumb. Companies don't deliberately weight their dice, on-line sites don't rig their random number generators - but I'm always surprised by the number of people who think they do.
- เกม
"The internet. has not helped with the number of liars or idiots" is my new sentence of the week.
its actually the reason i stopped watching the video.
insulting people for not agreeing with you is never a good look. it wont convince anyone to come to your side, and i dont believe someone who has been lied to is an idiot.
@@arcanealchemist3190
That is true...but people should be more concerned about being wrong than about not being insulted.
If I tell anyone my theory how I think Baseball works..everyone who actually understand the game will probably think. I'am an idiot and maybe even tell me...especially if I come from a position that all the people who claim that Baseball doesn't work like I think it does are payed liars. And If I listen to them I might actually learn how it works..and If I don't I stay ignorant.
I agree that insulting people isn't. helpful...but it also isn't helpful to pretend someone is smart or has a good point or understands something if he clearly doesn't.
@@arcanealchemist3190 The interenet has not helped with the number of insults either. Its good and healthy that you turned off at that point. But some people enjoy a well time piece of vitriol and see the humour in it, and TH-cam likes divisive content, so I'm going to be content with my self-restraint that 90% of my content is not tempted by the algorithm.
well made video, although I don't think it is outlandish at all for a 2% skew for a 1 to be rolled with a given set of dice due to quality control and I believe that buying higher precision dice is fine
It's always nice when the algorithm decides to offer up a gem like this, hope it goes well for you!
Very surprised that this has so few views, and I'm glad that the algorithm decided to give this a chance, because I really enjoyed this! If you're looking to grow an audience, this is definitely the direction to keep going
In boardgames and war games, this is very important. In tabletop RPGs, however, dice superstition is an important cultural tradition and having a special die that only comes out for big moments, like a star athlete, adds to everyone's enjoyment. See also: jynxing dice
This same phenomenon can be seen on the Steam forums for games like Baldur's Gate. It has lead video game developers to actually sometimes load random rolls in favor of the player if they have recently been on an "unlucky streak". Because it can be better to make fake randomness that acts like most players' bad idea of how randomness works, than deal with the publication bias you described.
I disagree, at infinite rolls the independent probabilities converge at having averaged out and as the amount of rolls tends towards infinity the mean deviation from average gets smaller, but yes at small scale you may roll 30% more sixes than expected simply because of luck, but that's not going to hold forever. The distribution of a balanced dice would be very close to perfect at say... 24,000,000 rolls (it's extremely statistically unlikely that the die is properly balanced at 24M rolls if the distribution has meaningful error).
Well, this got a lot of attention while I wasn't paying any attention. Clearly this kind of topic is popular. Unfortunately, no, it won't become the normal thing on the channel. It will be back to tactics and strategy soon, and only occasionally having to do a rant to get something like this off my chest.
It's like when people say "you should buy a lottery ticket" when you've had a bit of good luck. It must mean you're "hot" and now's your chance to get really lucky. But it seems to me, statistically, that's backwards. You should wait til you've had terrible luck, like 24 1's in a row, then buy that ticket, because you've just been as unlucky as possible, so you can only be luckier now. But this is also subjective nonsense. Personally, I think I'm very lucky, and I don't push it. I just enjoy it when it pays off. Seems like a healthier attitude imo.
Yes, the psychology of randomness is very interesting. I spent the weekend teaching Steve Jackson's OGRE, a game in which players feel a strong psychological pull to play poorly (by increasing the odds ratio on attacks, which makes that single dice roll more likely to succeed but reduces the overall effectiveness of their attacks).
@@Lessons_from_the_front And i really enjoy playing games with dice and randomizers, but I have no interest in gambling, which is for me an entirely practical thing. I don't mind losing. I hate losing anything of value, even money.
Very nice.
reminds me of a game of Catan my family had recently where we had like six turns in a row where none of my dad's settlements produced resources and then later we got two 7s in a row and everyone thought that was remarkable, luckily noöne thought it was rigged :)
5:39
Not quite true, 1.5% is the chance that you get a 1, a 2, a 3, a 4, a 5 and a 6, not the expected result, which would be the sum of 21, which can be reached in other combinations, such as 3 fours and 3 threes. The chance of getting 21 as a sum from 6d6 is roughly 9.3% according to anydice.
depends on if you are looking at the expected faces, or the expected value. imagine the faces are random arbitrary symbols and not digits, do you still think that three wugs and three forps is equivalent to one roll of each?
Pfft.
Dice need proper training.
About the "game" you play with your friend, loosing 6 out of 6 times would have a p-value of 0.0156 (H0: the dice arent rigged against you), meaning it would be statistically quite significant. Loosing 10 games would be a p-value of 0.1%, which would be very statistically significant. Not particle physics significant, and there are bound to be times where it happens, but the chance that you loose 10 out of 10 games without the dice being rigged against you is a tenth of a percent.
This of course completely ignores the sampling bias of complaining on a forum, and is just about the statistical significance of a series of games with your friend.
That would only be significant if those are the only 6 rolls. Otherwise you get xkcd 882 style publication bias problems.
Say everyone follows your reasoning. If 1000 people play the game, on average 1 will wrongfully conclude that their friend is scamming them. So, when human activities are involved, i think the better question is not the statistical significance, but rather the amount of people experiencing it. This still results in a significance threshold, but a very lower one. As Matt Parker says in his "how lucky is too lucky" video (min 29:00), we can define the measure of how many times it will happen if all of humanity did that activity once each second for a year, and you can see that a lot of wrong conclusions would be reached. Also, for human activity, a threshold p-val of 5% is very high: it means that 1 out of 20 people will reach the wrong conclusion. I also want to cite the bayes theorem P(A|B)=P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B) where A="dice are rigged" and B="6 times 6". P(B) = 1/(6^6)= 2e-5. Say we give a prior P(A) that 1 in 1 million friends would rig the dice, and say that rigged dice have P(B|A)=50% probability of giving all sixes 6 times in a row. That leaves us with only a 10% probability that your friend is scamming you
@@gioelechristille4650 Yeah, im aware that the nature of the significance level, with the 6 dice rolls about 16 out of 1000 games will get a false positive if you use a strict yes-no test.
However it still is somewhat significant, more so for 10 dice rolls, so to say "its almost certainly random chance" is, just like blindly (and genuinely) accusing your play partner, not a reasonable thing to do. That doesnt mean you cant get suspicious and start taking a closer look at the dice-rolls in the future (should you genuinely suspect your friend is cheating at this casual game with no stakes, its another story if something is actually on the line), or at least reasonably complain in good spirits that youre being unlucky (everyone gets unlucky sometimes as the significance level shows).
Like I said I only really calculated the probabilities because I was curious, and I fully agree that 6 or even 10 games arent enough to accuse your friend. It might be enough for you to get suspicious about your friend, if you deem their character or the circumstances to be compatible with cheating, and make you pay close(r) attention in the future, but thats about it.
Yes, that is to do with a fundamental problem with the thresholds for statistical significance. By definition applying a 5% threshold will get you the 'wrong' answer 5% of the time - which is why statistical significance is only a good heuristic in certain circumstances (and why publication bias is such an issue). Unfortunately statistical significance is a widely misunderstood concept even amongst people who engage in professional research, so its not surprising it gets misunderstood in wider contexts.