Coin Flip option

[giuppi]

Try it yourself. Flip a coin 100 times, and see if you can do better than 50 correct guesses.

Sure I can do it, around 50% of the times

 

[Shepherd]

i love this thread soooo much. Please, keep it going!

The odds of winning the big jackpot in the California SuperLotto are 1 in 41,416,353. I guess if you beat the odds and win the jackpot, it means you have more skill at SuperLotto than somebody else.

Classic.

 

[zspBANNED]

Hahaha exactly. Now if they win the California SuperLotto TWICE!?

 

[giuppi]

I'd like to see one of these "many studies" that support your argument.

Granted that I don't believe it, you might want to read this blog post
In it you'll find a discussion about the forthcoming paper "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect" by the apparently "extremely well-respected" psychologist Daryl J. Bem (Cornell University).

In extreme synthesis, when subjects had to guess behind which of the two curtains a porn picture would be displayed, they would guess correctly 53.1 percent of the time...

 

[zspBANNED]

In extreme synthesis, when subjects had to guess behind which of the two curtains a porn picture would be displayed, they would guess correctly 53.1 percent of the time...

Yeah, that's b/c the guys in that study were thinking with two heads instead of one.... :bebored:

 

[Shepherd]

wow, this just keeps getting better. Thanks for that, giuppi and zsp.

The study showed that folks trying to predict the location of non-erotic photos were correct only 49.8% of the time, suggesting that one needs some seriously enticing rewards if one is to predict the future... for dorky college students who are sitting as subjects for some ridiculous study on a Friday night rather than out getting laid, pornography just might be enough to help them to cross over into another dimension. I'm not sure beating somebody else's troops in the Congo provides quite the same motivation.

Even if it does: in the current dice system, the attacker in a 3-2 scenario will come out with an average of .158 more armies than the defender. In the coin flip, an unusually prescient attack who's correct guess rate is at the porn level would come out with .06 more armies than the defender. I'll take the dice.

As for winning SuperLoto twice: somebody who has already won has as much chance as winning next week as I do.

 

[Badorties]

So you are saying we should turn the dice into porn and we will have better odds?

 

[ghost]

So you are saying we should turn the dice into porn and we will have better odds?

it seems that way, should we start serving the web cams and masturbation before or after we go live?

 

[zspBANNED]

As for winning SuperLoto twice: somebody who has already won has as much chance as winning next week as I do.

No, it means they have some serious SKILL! haha

 

[giuppi]

So you are saying we should turn the dice into porn and we will have better odds?

Not quite. We should turn the REGIONS into porn and we'll have better odds with the dice

 

[ghost]

Not quite. We should turn the REGIONS into porn and we'll have better odds with the dice

assland... lol.
don't forget the island of muff... ha.

 

[Spazm]

Let's just make everyone happy, and flip a 6 sided coin. Win/win!

 

[Jewmowrestler]

personally, i've always hated the way the dice work out. maybe we could use dice but to eliminate some of the riskiness by doing a sum of the rolls. I.e., if its 3v1, a die is rolled 3 times for the first, and once for the second, and the higher sum wins.

 

[stonebergftw]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I can assure everyone here that I would never, ever, under any circumstances, play a risk type game that relied on coin flips for the logic.

Let's not forget that the odds of a tie with a coin flip are 50%, and are dramatically less with dice. Ties are a great part of the strategy of this game. For instance, it's measurably better to defend a territory with equal occupancy, than to attack.

 

[Shepherd]

personally, i've always hated the way the dice work out. maybe we could use dice but to eliminate some of the riskiness by doing a sum of the rolls. I.e., if its 3v1, a die is rolled 3 times for the first, and once for the second, and the higher sum wins.

Huh, that's not an entirely stupid idea - which means it doesn't belong in this thread!

I'm pretty confident we'll never eliminate the standard, time-tested dice method. However, we're looking into giving folks an alternative, and this would indeed be an interesting one. But since it still counts on chance and luck, there is going to be a game at some point in which somebody loses three consecutive 3-1 rolls, and we're going to hear about how that's impossible and the system is flawed.

 

[Jewmowrestler]

There will always be people who hate the method. People will always blame other things before they blame themselves. If your entire strategy is based on a lucky roll of the dice, then it was set up to fail from the beginning. I do, however, understand the frustration: I was playing a game with a friend and managed to lose and army of 7 against an army of 3. But it's all associated with the risk element of the game; I think when it comes down to why we play the game, it's not just so we can fulfill our childhood (or for me, lifelong haha) dreams of works domination, it's for the thrill of the risk involved, even if it leads to failure.

 

[Robinette]

i've always hated the coin toss in football for the same reasons y'all don't want it here...

so i support the NFL's decision to start using dice to start their games from now on...

seriously though...

i support having 3 simple options..

the standard dice (hot & spicy streaks)
the coin toss (mild streaks)
and fixed force (tofo flavor)

i just wish there was somebody else here that was really good with math, someone that could chime in on the empirical proof i already presented because apparently i'm not MAN enough for it to be accepted...

Actually, you don't have to be a genius, you just have to a reasonably intelligent guy.
Calling all reasonably intelligent males that can examine mathematics logically instead of emotionally....

So Speak up...



I'll wait...
























*distant cry of an eagle*
















Anybody?







*sigh*

well, if you want to see it, just read the 1st page of this thread...
it's all laid out there, in black and white...
i can work the probabilities any which way, and the answer will always be the same...
Coin Toss is a lot less streaky than the current dice.
A "mild" choice that is SIMPLE and EASY.
Thanks for listening...

 

[giuppi]

i can work the probabilities any which way, and the answer will always be the same...
Coin Toss is a lot less streaky than the current dice.
A "mild" choice that is SIMPLE and EASY.
Thanks for listening...

You are welcome. I think that the difference in streakiness between the current method and the coin option does not justify the introduction of the coin option.
To use your example (losing 8 coin flips in a row vs losing 10v2 with conventional dice) the probabilities are the SAME order of magnitude, which is I would say a better representation of the perceived fairness of the system. To be perfectly clear: sure there is a difference (btw it's .39% vs .58%, i.e. 49% difference), but since it applies to very small quantities, it is not 'perceived' to be significant in the course of even extremely prolonged game sessions.

Also, speaking of coins, the probability of getting the sequence THTTTHHTHHHT is exactly the same as the sequence TTTTTTTTTTTT (0.024%) despite the fact that we might perceive the former as being more 'random' than the latter. If the latter happens (statistically, almost once every 4000 flips), how are you gonna tell the poor chap that this system is 'milder' than the dice one?

To sum up, the introduction of the coin option won't noticeably reduce the statistical occurrences of streaks, and very long streaks can still occur. Whoever thinks the system is rigged will still think it is (incidentally, why do we care about these people? nobody is forced to play here).

I just don't see why bother. Two options:
1) Dice OR Coin Flip
AND
2) Fixed Force
is the approach that makes the most sense to me.

 

[zspBANNED]

Huh, that's not an entirely stupid idea - which means it doesn't belong in this thread!

Hey, I came up with that "not entirely stupid idea" before and no one said anything then....


Jerks.

 

[WidowMakers]

You are welcome. I think that the difference in streakiness between the current method and the coin option does not justify the introduction of the coin option.
To use your example (losing 8 coin flips in a row vs losing 10v2 with conventional dice) the probabilities are the SAME order of magnitude, which is I would say a better representation of the perceived fairness of the system. To be perfectly clear: sure there is a difference (btw it's .39% vs .58%, i.e. 49% difference), but since it applies to very small quantities, it is not 'perceived' to be significant in the course of even extremely prolonged game sessions.

Also, speaking of coins, the probability of getting the sequence THTTTHHTHHHT is exactly the same as the sequence TTTTTTTTTTTT (0.024%) despite the fact that we might perceive the former as being more 'random' than the latter. If the latter happens (statistically, almost once every 4000 flips), how are you gonna tell the poor chap that this system is 'milder' than the dice one?
Exactly why coins will fail-inserted statement from WM

To sum up, the introduction of the coin option won't noticeably reduce the statistical occurrences of streaks, and very long streaks can still occur. Whoever thinks the system is rigged will still think it is (incidentally, why do we care about these people? nobody is forced to play here).

I just don't see why bother. Two options:
1) Dice OR Coin Flip
AND
2) Fixed Force
is the approach that makes the most sense to me.

I posted something about coins a while back and you did a much better job.
Agree 99.9% with this post and the final conclusion( sans the coin option)