Prerequisite for Dice Complainers

[bb82]

Rob, what he's referring to is the uncanny trend that lone units seem to follow when defending. More often than not, lone units end up successfully hitting on defense (hence the need to attack with more authority other than a "light" counter), and more often than not, a "1" is rolled instead of a "2."

So y'all think that single units defending by themselves roll more 1s than they should? Has this been tracked at all or is this just observation? Any volunteers to set up as many single defender battles to see if this observation hold any water? For a starter, let's go with 100 rolls.

It's the equivalent of me dancing in 3 circles and then rolling a 3. If I dance in 2 circles I will then roll a 2.

If I really want my defender to hit, it just wont. I remember all the times it doesn't hit. Same thing when I really want to hit their defender. For some reason this must be fact since all I can remember are the times that I miss...

Now I will dance in 6 circles and roll a 6...

It really does work, "sometimes".

[UtzChips]

Rob, what he's referring to is the uncanny trend that lone units seem to follow when defending. More often than not, lone units end up successfully hitting on defense (hence the need to attack with more authority other than a "light" counter), and more often than not, a "1" is rolled instead of a "2."

So y'all think that single units defending by themselves roll more 1s than they should? Has this been tracked at all or is this just observation? Any volunteers to set up as many single defender battles to see if this observation hold any water? For a starter, let's go with 100 rolls.

Rock's claim is untrue I believe. I just got playing an expert this morning, who just couldn't stop whinin' about how I would hit the deadzones with 2 inf 1 ftr vs. his 1 inf & kill his inf & his inf hardly ever get a hit & I never didn't take the territory.

Also, it is a common strategy of mine, as Germany, when I am short on infantry to hit say, Karelia which has 1/2 inf, with the same amount + a lotta fighters & I do well enough to have not discontinued the strategy.

I was taking Belo, more often than not, going 1v1 on inf & 1 fighter.

Dice rollz are random and that meets you will run into the extremes & sometimes you will be on the receiving end & sometimes you will so proud of your playing ability...........

Don't believe me? I talked to 2 craps dealers who told me the story about the lady who held the dice for 3 1/2 hrs at a craps table b4 crappin' out years back. Now there's your extreme!!

Next time you go to a casino, check out the craps tables at peak hours. There will be tables where all the players are just a hootin' & hollerin' cause they are rollin' good & then you got your quiet tables, & even your tables that break down because the dice are so cold.

If you run a battle scenario thru the battle calculator and it says you have 1/4% of a chance of not having a ground unit left with the dust settles, that means, that there is a chance you will not win & it will occur to someone, sometime, soon!

What does it take for one to accept the fact that this game [although requires skill to have a high win%] is a game of chance and no matter who you are, you can't win 90% of your games unless you seek out just the right game conditions.

When I see players with a 88% win rate, I know what's up. They aren't playing 88 out of a 100 players who are close to their skill level & you can take that to the bank!

[rockismyreligion]

Rob, what he's referring to is the uncanny trend that lone units seem to follow when defending. More often than not, lone units end up successfully hitting on defense (hence the need to attack with more authority other than a "light" counter), and more often than not, a "1" is rolled instead of a "2."

So y'all think that single units defending by themselves roll more 1s than they should? Has this been tracked at all or is this just observation? Any volunteers to set up as many single defender battles to see if this observation hold any water? For a starter, let's go with 100 rolls.

Rock's claim is untrue I believe. I just got playing an expert this morning, who just couldn't stop whinin' about how I would hit the deadzones with 2 inf 1 ftr vs. his 1 inf & kill his inf & his inf hardly ever get a hit & I never didn't take the territory.

Also, it is a common strategy of mine, as Germany, when I am short on infantry to hit say, Karelia which has 1/2 inf, with the same amount + a lotta fighters & I do well enough to have not discontinued the strategy.

I was taking Belo, more often than not, going 1v1 on inf & 1 fighter.

Dice rollz are random and that meets you will run into the extremes & sometimes you will be on the receiving end & sometimes you will so proud of your playing ability...........

Don't believe me? I talked to 2 craps dealers who told me the story about the lady who held the dice for 3 1/2 hrs at a craps table b4 crappin' out years back. Now there's your extreme!!

Next time you go to a casino, check out the craps tables at peak hours. There will be tables where all the players are just a hootin' & hollerin' cause they are rollin' good & then you got your quiet tables, & even your tables that break down because the dice are so cold.

If you run a battle scenario thru the battle calculator and it says you have 1/4% of a chance of not having a ground unit left with the dust settles, that means, that there is a chance you will not win & it will occur to someone, sometime, soon!

What does it take for one to accept the fact that this game [although requires skill to have a high win%] is a game of chance and no matter who you are, you can't win 90% of your games unless you seek out just the right game conditions.

When I see players with a 88% win rate, I know what's up. They aren't playing 88 out of a 100 players who are close to their skill level & you can take that to the bank!

Those calculations right there just go to show that the one-in-a-million roll exists, and I have seen it many times at GTO.

[bb82]

Those calculations right there just go to show that the one-in-a-million roll exists, and I have seen it many times at GTO.

Every time you throw 50 dice it is more than "one-in-a-million" to repeat that exact same result. Yet that doesn't mean anything other than a "one-in-a-million" roll is highly relative and a matter of semantics.

People generally see only what they want to see from the dice.

[UtzChips]

I am willing to pony up $100.00 [if there was a way to do this honestly] that if you could identify the "strongest expert" here and the next 50 strongest, have that top expert play 2 games each [one as axis & allies & same bid] against the other 50, that he/she will not win more than 70-75% at best. I am willing to bet that, because I truly believe that person wouldn't win more than 65-70%, and I may be giving him/her too much credit at 65%.

The games would have to be live with a 90/5 time limit. I think the top gun would consider 65% a success, but if anyone thinks it more like 76%, I've got $100.00 if you wanna bet.

Win/Loss records mean almost squat! When one chess player knows he is going to be playing another in the next round of a tournament, his/her first thought isn't "what's his win/loss record?" It's 1. what's his rating. 2. what's his favorite openings for whatever color his opponent is going to have.

Just think of it: If GTO had started out from its birth, with a rating system that mirrored the chess world, NOBODY would be rated 3000.

It's just not possible. Never been achieved. Not when the top gun loses on avg loses 24 points when he loses & gains only 8, when only going so far down the food chain. And, if he/she goes down far enough, they're risking 32 points to win 2.

[rockismyreligion]

Those calculations right there just go to show that the one-in-a-million roll exists, and I have seen it many times at GTO.

Every time you throw 50 dice it is more than "one-in-a-million" to repeat that exact same result. Yet that doesn't mean anything other than a "one-in-a-million" roll is highly relative and a matter of semantics.

People generally see only what they want to see from the dice.

Obviously even after the exaggeration of an exaggeration, the point is one and the same. Different net results are different to be sure, but, who can really claim that they have not been awestruck by a jaw-dropping result more than twice?

I am willing to pony up $100.00 [if there was a way to do this honestly] that if you could identify the "strongest expert" here and the next 50 strongest, have that top expert play 2 games each [one as axis & allies & same bid] against the other 50, that he/she will not win more than 70-75% at best. I am willing to bet that, because I truly believe that person wouldn't win more than 65-70%, and I may be giving him/her too much credit at 65%.

The games would have to be live with a 90/5 time limit. I think the top gun would consider 65% a success, but if anyone thinks it more like 76%, I've got $100.00 if you wanna bet.

Now that's an interesting notion. We might as well attempt this using our "record" system.

[UtzChips]

Win/Loss records mean almost squat! When one chess player knows he is going to be playing another in the next round of a tournament, his/her first thought isn't "what's his win/loss record?" It's 1. what's his rating. 2. what's his favorite openings for whatever color his opponent is going to have.

Just think of it: If GTO had started out from its birth, with a rating system that mirrored the chess world, NOBODY would be rated 3000.

It's just not possible. Never been achieved. Not when the top gun loses on avg loses 24 points when he loses & gains only 8, when only going so far down the food chain. And, if he/she goes down far enough, they're risking 32 points to win 2.

[rockismyreligion]

Win/Loss records mean almost squat! When one chess player knows he is going to be playing another in the next round of a tournament, his/her first thought isn't "what's his win/loss record?" It's 1. what's his rating. 2. what's his favorite openings for whatever color his opponent is going to have.

Just think of it: If GTO had started out from its birth, with a rating system that mirrored the chess world, NOBODY would be rated 3000.

It's just not possible. Never been achieved. Not when the top gun loses on avg loses 24 points when he loses & gains only 8, when only going so far down the food chain. And, if he/she goes down far enough, they're risking 32 points to win 2.

That's why I used quotes for our tracking method. You're not the only person outraged by it.

[UtzChips]

What tracking method?

By the way.......I am defending the dice generator & I got beat up so bad yesterday by an expert who just could not freakin' miss! Just kept on poundin' me with the dice while I continued to spill my bottle of white-out.

By the end of the game, I was so punch-drunk silly, I actually believed he had the ability to hack into the dice generator!

Now for me, that's gettin' beat up real bad! Over and over again with the bad dice. I did step on that expert's cherished parts at Solomon though!

[rockismyreligion]

What tracking method?

LMAO, touche, though I didn't have a point that merited a counterpoint.

I damn-near pissed myself at the rest of your statement above.

[bb82]

What does it take for one to accept the fact that this game [although requires skill to have a high win%] is a game of chance and no matter who you are, you can't win 90% of your games unless you seek out just the right game conditions.

This is why you couldn't make them live games. In that case I'm sure fp would win 80%+ against top players. It would need to be pbem to make time less of an issue. With the time factor minimized then I'd also doubt many could do 80%+ against top players.

Part of the issue is bids too. Each game should be bidded. Not set a bid and force both to play it at that bid. Bid the games and let the players decide.

[UtzChips]

What does it take for one to accept the fact that this game [although requires skill to have a high win%] is a game of chance and no matter who you are, you can't win 90% of your games unless you seek out just the right game conditions.

This is why you couldn't make them live games. In that case I'm sure fp would win 80%+ against top players. It would need to be pbem to make time less of an issue. With the time factor minimized then I'd also doubt many could do 80%+ against top players.

Part of the issue is bids too. Each game should be bidded. Not set a bid and force both to play it at that bid. Bid the games and let the players decide.

Are you serious about Prince? You really think he is so freakin' good, that if he played the 2nd-51st seeded expert here, 1 game as allies and the other as axis [for a total of 100 games], with a 90/5 time limit & regular dice, that he would win 80%+ of his 100 games?

I've played him a few times & was dazzled by his brilliance, but I thought some of that dazzlement came from the fact that I was so weak.

NOTE: With my rating system, Prince would have gained 4 pts for those wins against me, instead of 100.

[rockismyreligion]

What does it take for one to accept the fact that this game [although requires skill to have a high win%] is a game of chance and no matter who you are, you can't win 90% of your games unless you seek out just the right game conditions.

This is why you couldn't make them live games. In that case I'm sure fp would win 80%+ against top players. It would need to be pbem to make time less of an issue. With the time factor minimized then I'd also doubt many could do 80%+ against top players.

Part of the issue is bids too. Each game should be bidded. Not set a bid and force both to play it at that bid. Bid the games and let the players decide.

Are you serious about Prince? You really think he is so freakin' good, that if he played the 2nd-51st seeded expert here, 1 game as allies and the other as axis [for a total of 100 games], with a 90/5 time limit & regular dice, that he would win 80%+ of his 100 games?

I've played him a few times & was dazzled by his brilliance, but I thought some of that dazzlement came from the fact that I was so weak.

NOTE: With my rating system, Prince would have gained 4 pts for those wins against me, instead of 100.

FP is like Iceman in Top Gun. He plays textbook, and makes his moves based on low luck calculations. That's where I come from in many of my games.

[UtzChips]

So, you've confirmed it: You believe FP is the best out there & would 80 out of 100 games against the next best 50 experts.

Why does he use LL calculations? I ask, because, say you would gain an advantage by attacking a territory with 12 inf 6 art 6 arm & 2 ftr vs. 14 inf 5 art & 3 arm.

The axisandallies.org/aacalc gives you the average return for regular dice as: 2 art 6 arm & 2 ftrs. LL gives you 3 art.

If you get that average return, opponent can't hit it and then you can reinforce the territory with an ally b4 he is able to.

However, if you get a poor result [12% of the time] where you are left with only 2 arm 2 ftrs, you are in trouble.

So, I take it he recalculates after each roll and decides whether to withdraw? He'd also have to take into account [I would think] the chances of getting diced on roll 1/2 & being in bad shape after withdrawing, which you do not have to take into account with low luck dice.

[rockismyreligion]

So, you've confirmed it: You believe FP is the best out there & would 80 out of 100 games against the next best 50 experts.

Why does he use LL calculations? I ask, because, say you would gain an advantage by attacking a territory with 12 inf 6 art 6 arm & 2 ftr vs. 14 inf 5 art & 3 arm.

The axisandallies.org/aacalc gives you the average return for regular dice as: 2 art 6 arm & 2 ftrs. LL gives you 3 art.

If you get that average return, opponent can't hit it and then you can reinforce the territory with an ally b4 he is able to.

However, if you get a poor result [12% of the time] where you are left with only 2 arm 2 ftrs, you are in trouble.

So, I take it he recalculates after each roll and decides whether to withdraw? He'd also have to take into account [I would think] the chances of getting diced on roll 1/2 & being in bad shape after withdrawing, which you do not have to take into account with low luck dice.

I didn't say he was the best. Remember, in Top Gun, though he had less points, Maverick was the best. FP is unlikely to make mistakes.

He uses low luck calculations because he attacks light (so as to bleed his opponent via attrition) and only moves to territories where he can gain a tactical advantage.