Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

User avatar
Dust In The Wind
Guide
Posts: 5327
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: North Ga Mts

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Dust In The Wind » Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:03 pm

Now that I can agree with just as the cut deck feature allows for a new random deal dependent upon the cut. I do not agree with as you put to "dum down the game".

JUST DUST

PS - This I feel jonas is a realistic option that would put it back into the players hands. Of course I would have a limit on max. shakes, don't want rounded dice or wear the spots off.

PS - Always a solution.
TO BE OR NOT TO BE..... NOW WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT??? TO BE OF COURSE!!!!!

Death_Row
Active Poster
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Death_Row » Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:32 pm

My comment is saying "you're not doing that".....

3. you're not trying to dumb down the game

Death_Row
Active Poster
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Death_Row » Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:40 pm

I think it's very important that the "cup shake" & the "dice throw/release" be in the hands of the player. and the bot has to shake a certain (random) number of times as well.

User avatar
Dust In The Wind
Guide
Posts: 5327
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: North Ga Mts

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Dust In The Wind » Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:47 pm

LOL, I was agreeing with you and you twist my words.... LOL. I agreed that using the cup to shake the dice was a good idea and anything other would be dumbing down the game if you take out random and make it something other than that LOL....

WOW, LOL

JUST DUST

PS - Personally I like the cut deck feature since when the cards go bad I make my own luck by cutting... I have also played "real" cards with some people would never play without cutting the deck first. LOL

LOL

PS - I'll try not to agree with you anymore LOL
TO BE OR NOT TO BE..... NOW WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT??? TO BE OF COURSE!!!!!

Death_Row
Active Poster
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Death_Row » Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:22 pm

Ok... here again is a perception issue... lemme think on it to see how this one can be solved...

User avatar
Dust In The Wind
Guide
Posts: 5327
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: North Ga Mts

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Dust In The Wind » Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:47 pm

LOL

JUST DUST
TO BE OR NOT TO BE..... NOW WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT??? TO BE OF COURSE!!!!!

Death_Row
Active Poster
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Death_Row » Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:04 am

Pseudo-Random Number Generators (PRNGs)
As the word ‘pseudo’ suggests, pseudo-random numbers are not random in the way you might expect, at least not if you're used to dice rolls or lottery tickets. Essentially, PRNGs are algorithms that use mathematical formulae or simply precalculated tables to produce sequences of numbers that appear random. A good example of a PRNG is the linear congruential method. A good deal of research has gone into pseudo-random number theory, and modern algorithms for generating pseudo-random numbers are so good that the numbers look exactly like they were really random.

The basic difference between PRNGs and TRNGs is easy to understand if you compare computer-generated random numbers to rolls of a die. Because PRNGs generate random numbers by using mathematical formulae or precalculated lists, using one corresponds to someone rolling a die many times and writing down the results. Whenever you ask for a die roll, you get the next on the list. Effectively, the numbers appear random, but they are really predetermined. TRNGs work by getting a computer to actually roll the die — or, more commonly, use some other physical phenomenon that is easier to connect to a computer than a die is.

PRNGs are efficient, meaning they can produce many numbers in a short time, and deterministic, meaning that a given sequence of numbers can be reproduced at a later date if the starting point in the sequence is known. Efficiency is a nice characteristic if your application needs many numbers, and determinism is handy if you need to replay the same sequence of numbers again at a later stage. PRNGs are typically also periodic, which means that the sequence will eventually repeat itself. While periodicity is hardly ever a desirable characteristic, modern PRNGs have a period that is so long that it can be ignored for most practical purposes.

These characteristics make PRNGs suitable for applications where many numbers are required and where it is useful that the same sequence can be replayed easily. Popular examples of such applications are simulation and modeling applications. PRNGs are not suitable for applications where it is important that the numbers are really unpredictable, such as data encryption and gambling.

It should be noted that even though good PRNG algorithms exist, they aren't always used, and it's easy to get nasty surprises. Take the example of the popular web programming language PHP. If you use PHP for GNU/Linux, chances are you will be perfectly happy with your random numbers. However, if you use PHP for Microsoft Windows, you will probably find that your random numbers aren't quite up to scratch as shown in this visual analysis from 2008. Another example dates back to 2002 when one researcher reported that the PRNG on MacOS was not good enough for scientific simulation of virus infections. The bottom line is that even if a PRNG will serve your application's needs, you still need to be careful about which one you use.

True Random Number Generators (TRNGs)
In comparison with PRNGs, TRNGs extract randomness from physical phenomena and introduce it into a computer. You can imagine this as a die connected to a computer, but typically people use a physical phenomenon that is easier to connect to a computer than a die is. The physical phenomenon can be very simple, like the little variations in somebody's mouse movements or in the amount of time between keystrokes. In practice, however, you have to be careful about which source you choose. For example, it can be tricky to use keystrokes in this fashion, because keystrokes are often buffered by the computer's operating system, meaning that several keystrokes are collected before they are sent to the program waiting for them. To a program waiting for the keystrokes, it will seem as though the keys were pressed almost simultaneously, and there may not be a lot of randomness there after all.

However, there are many other ways to get true randomness into your computer. A really good physical phenomenon to use is a radioactive source. The points in time at which a radioactive source decays are completely unpredictable, and they can quite easily be detected and fed into a computer, avoiding any buffering mechanisms in the operating system. The HotBits service at Fourmilab in Switzerland is an excellent example of a random number generator that uses this technique. Another suitable physical phenomenon is atmospheric noise, which is quite easy to pick up with a normal radio. This is the approach used by RANDOM.ORG. You could also use background noise from an office or laboratory, but you'll have to watch out for patterns. The fan from your computer might contribute to the background noise, and since the fan is a rotating device, chances are the noise it produces won't be as random as atmospheric noise.

As long as you are careful, the possibilities are endless. Undoubtedly the visually coolest approach was the lavarand generator, which was built by Silicon Graphics and used snapshots of lava lamps to generate true random numbers. Unfortunately, lavarand is no longer operational, but one of its inventors is carrying on the work (without the lava lamps) at the LavaRnd web site. Yet another approach is the Java EntropyPool, which gathers random bits from a variety of sources including HotBits and RANDOM.ORG, but also from web page hits received by the EntropyPool's own web server.

Regardless of which physical phenomenon is used, the process of generating true random numbers involves identifying little, unpredictable changes in the data. For example, HotBits uses little variations in the delay between occurrences of radioactive decay, and RANDOM.ORG uses little variations in the amplitude of atmospheric noise.

The characteristics of TRNGs are quite different from PRNGs. First, TRNGs are generally rather inefficient compared to PRNGs, taking considerably longer time to produce numbers. They are also nondeterministic, meaning that a given sequence of numbers cannot be reproduced, although the same sequence may of course occur several times by chance. TRNGs have no period.

http://www.random.org/randomness/

See Tables

Death_Row
Active Poster
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Death_Row » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:03 pm

No comment on the recommendations?

Death_Row
Active Poster
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Death_Row » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:15 pm

I guess it's possible to throw 4 (5 & 3 )s in a row... yup... that's what happened...

Death_Row
Active Poster
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Death_Row » Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:54 pm

4 to 5 6 3 rolls in a row wow

Death_Row
Active Poster
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Death_Row » Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:04 am

Just curious... Has anybody from SW read my idea regarding the backgammon cup idea...? Is the idea being considered...? Is my idea possible...? Is the idea worth considering...? Some response would be nice not to mention courteous...

User avatar
Jonas
Illuminated One
Illuminated One
Posts: 4998
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Jonas » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:14 pm

Yeah, we might be able to do a cup thing. So basically it would just spin up some random dice positions until you let go of them?

While it wouldn't really effect the outcome, it might make ya feel like you have added some extra thoroughness to the dice rolls.

Death_Row
Active Poster
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Death_Row » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:26 am

If there are numbers being generated in the cup as the cup is shaken (digitally speakin) it will make a difference. As it stands now you click the board... you get "A" set of numbers. By shaking the cup... the player makes the choice of which set of numbers are thrown... that will/would be the case (as I previously stated) if numbers are being generated as the cup is being moved back and forth.

User avatar
Jonas
Illuminated One
Illuminated One
Posts: 4998
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Jonas » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:12 am

Its would really be more like pushing a button and stopping on what ever number it landed on. Which is does now, you just don't push it.

Think about it this way. Lets say you are looking a footage on your tv of static. Every frame of static being a random set of dots. The cuproll would be like saying that you can pause on any frame and we'll use that static (roll). The thing is each piece of static is as good as the next.

In reality, When you start the game, you are setting in motion when the sample will be taken. start a game a second later (or a millisecond later) and you get a totally different random seed.

The cup in effect is just like adding a lever to a digital slot machine, purely decoration. EVEN if evey wiggle of the cup was factored in to the calculation, its still just the same thing. It might feel good, but its not going to change the statistical outcome.

If the computer flips a coin, it does it in a more fair way than if you physically flipped a coin, as you might be able to cheat it in real live (as one could with dice rolls.) the computer is a cold impartial roller of the dice.

Death_Row
Active Poster
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the rolls stacked in the computers favor, absolutly not.

Post by Death_Row » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:33 pm

The cup in effect is just like adding a lever to a digital slot machine, purely decoration. EVEN if evey wiggle of the cup was factored in to the calculation, its still just the same thing. It might feel good, but its not going to change the statistical outcome.
If what you say is true regarding the dice being random. then yes it may feel "right" perception. What was the purpose of the cut deck/shuffle feature in the card games? Was that to randomize the deck or was that purely cosmetic? It sounds like what you're saying is random numbers are being "constantly" generated and when you click the board you get what you get.... Is this not an event driven (board click) game (number generator)?

Post Reply