On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 at 12:28:20 AM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
> On Monday, October 6, 2014 4:39:33 PM UTC-4, lan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Many times when I am in a critical position in the game and it is my
> > opponent's roll, I say to myself "I bet I know what the next roll is
> > going to be" and sure enough I am right most of the time - a perfect roll
> > either in my favor or my opponent's. The odds for the occurrence of such
> > perfect rolls in critical positions defy the rules of probability.
> This would be interesting if you have written records to back it up. Instead of just "saying to yourself," write down your prediction in a log book. It counts only if the prediction is written down completely before the roll appears. Furthermore you must pledge that every time you write down a prediction, it stays on the permanent record even if you end up being wrong.
>
> I've never heard of anyone actually doing this, so I have to assume that you're just deluding yourself. I would love to be proved wrong, so please start such a log book and share the results after you have accumulated, say, 500 predictions.

This reminds me of a really frustrating argument I had around 1994 with a guy who claimed that FIBS rolls were not at all random, and that, if someone made a mistake,
the chance of that mistake being immediately punished was far more likely than with purely random dice. I was sure this was nonsense so I said "Ok, let's watch some Fibs games then.
If your theory is right, you're going to be really good at predicting the rolls! So let's go ahead!" He then consistently failed to predict the rolls, with his failed predictions being completely
consistent with a random hypothesis. However, far from conceding that he was right, he actually became very excited and was actually far more convinced of his theory than he was before
the experiment. Why?? I'll illustrate by example, the type of thing that happened. My friend (and he was a friend) would say: "Ok, that was a blunder not escaping! I predict he'll crunch with a 44!"
Then he would roll a 55 and crunch. "You see!! You see!!" my friend would say excitedly. "It's always a roll that punishes the bad play. Just as I predicted!"
So he was able to convince himself that he won the argument because there was no objective scientific examination of his claim. Note that his predictions were not resricted to predicting single
rolls. He could make any testable prediction --- predicting that something in a set of rolls would occur was fine. However, if something was outside his set, he would often say that it still proved his point
because although the roll was outside the set, it belonged in the set because it exposed the weakness of a bad play. So the type of thing that would happen is that he would say:
"Ok, now he's going to roll 21 or 31". We then see a roll of 32. "Yes, or 32! or 32! The same type of roll as I said. You see I'm right!"
I was unbelievably frustrated by this argument.
This guy went on to become a star grad student in mathematics, got a Ph.D in mathematics but I don't think he did all that much as a research mathematician.
He then went into industry.

Paul

On November 18, 2022 at 12:58:16 PM UTC-7, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

> On October 7, 2014 at 12:28:20 AM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:

>> .....

> This reminds me of a really frustrating argument.....

The one prior post in this thread was from
Nov 17, 2022 but you chose to quote and
reply to an eight years old post from Tim!?

A perfect proof that you are his ass-kisser
and one of the pack of sick dogs of RGB. :(

The only thing that should matter in this old
thread is that the first person who replied to
the original post was Michael Petch who did
post several more times, at length about the
rigged/bastardized dice in Safeharborgames,
FaceMe and rigged/riggable in MSN Gaming
Zone; and that he posted links to his daddy
Wong's infamous "official complaint form";
but that he never filled and filed a complaint
to his assholic daddy Wong about the dice at
Safeharborgames, FaceMe and MSN Gaming
Zone, etc.!

Everytime I see a mention (or an snide insider
reference) of it, I will roll it up and shove it up
his and his ilks' arrogant assholes, until Wong
publicly retracts his "official complaint form"
and apologizes for it...

MK

On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 2:58:16 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Ok, now he's going to roll 21 or 31". We then see a roll of 32. "Yes, or 32! or 32! The same type of roll as I said. You see I'm right!"
> I was unbelievably frustrated by this argument.

Interesting. Not that you're likely to get into such an argument again,
but one possible tactic you could have tried would be to have the guy
state rolls that are *not* going to happen. If he says that a roll is
definitely not going to happen and then it happens, that's harder to
weasel out of than if he predicts a particular roll and then a "similar"
roll happens.

If that sounds too complicated, you could restrict to simpler predictions,
such as dance/enter, or doublets/non-doublets.

---
Tim Chow

On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 21:56:55 UTC, Tim Chow wrote:

> Interesting. Not that you're likely to get into such an argument again,
> but one possible tactic you could have tried would be to have the guy
> state rolls that are *not* going to happen. If he says that a roll is
> definitely not going to happen and then it happens, that's harder to
> weasel out of than if he predicts a particular roll and then a "similar"
> roll happens.
>
> Tim Chow

Can we flip that on its head? If I announce that the bot is going to roll x-y and it does (as many times as the developer chooses, 1, 10, 100, no difference to me), how does the developer of the program "weasel out of it"?

Particularly, and especially, when I've disassembled his code (even though he's hidden it behind ProGuard) and so I know exactly when his bot is going to "roll" bullshit dice?

On 11/20/2022 11:36 AM, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> Can we flip that on its head? If I announce that the bot is going to roll x-y and it does (as many times as the developer chooses, 1, 10, 100, no difference to me), how does the developer of the program "weasel out of it"?

I might answer that question if you tell me where you attended
law school.

---
Tim Chow

On Sunday, 20 November 2022 at 18:22:14 UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 11/20/2022 11:36 AM, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> > Can we flip that on its head? If I announce that the bot is going to roll x-y and it does (as many times as the developer chooses, 1, 10, 100, no difference to me), how does the developer of the program "weasel out of it"?
> I might answer that question if you tell me where you attended
> law school.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

Just as soon as you admit to hawking fast cars around the strips of Vegas.........