pushbloke
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
|
 Posted:
Nov 27, 2005 - 16:39 |
 
|
what you mean "pseudo random" and why is snake eyes more likely, thats a scary thing to say after me noticing lots of snake eyes in my games.... |
|
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2005 - 16:59 |
|
Macike, shut it  |
_________________
My post count
Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so. |
|
Astarael
Joined: Aug 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2005 - 17:08 |
|
I will also do a single gfi if it shortens the pass, won't do doube gfi though. |
_________________
Oh my. |
|
macike
Joined: Jun 25, 2005
|
 Posted:
Nov 27, 2005 - 18:52 |
|
| pushbloke wrote: | | what you mean "pseudo random" and why is snake eyes more likely, thats a scary thing to say after me noticing lots of snake eyes in my games.... |
I believe it is not hard to google it out.
However if google is not your friend you may start with Wikipedia. |
_________________
Hold him, thrill him, kick him, kill him!!! |
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2005 - 19:04 |
|
i usually try to take sure feet on my throwers, good chance i can have 2 squares extra range |
|
|
MiBasse
Joined: Dec 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2005 - 19:55 |
|
| macike wrote: |
Please notice also that playing fumbbl games deals with pseudo random numbers and snake eyes are more likely to happen.  |
It may be pseudo random but that does NOT mean snake eyes are more likely to happen |
|
|
macike
Joined: Jun 25, 2005
|
 Posted:
Nov 27, 2005 - 23:10 |
|
| RedFish wrote: | | macike wrote: |
Please notice also that playing fumbbl games deals with pseudo random numbers and snake eyes are more likely to happen. |
It may be pseudo random but that does NOT mean snake eyes are more likely to happen |
I would agree that ONEs are not more likely to happen when we talk about a distribution.
But snake eyes is a sequence. Not mention the snake eyes re-roll resulting in snake eyes.
| Wikipedia wrote: | | Any PRNG run on a deterministic computer (contrast quantum computer) is a deterministic algorithm, its output will inevitably have one property that a true random sequence would not exhibit: guaranteed periodicity. |
If PRNG generates sequence of same dice roll (ONEs in particular) it is more likely to happen again than in the theoretical random case. This is because the periodicity is less likely to occur in the - infinite by definition - random number generator (ideal case).
Many of fumbbl coaches have experienced the sequences of ones so thus we know they are more likely to reoccur. 
If it is a 'bad day' then one suffers from the sequence of ONEs and his Luck indicator goes below 45%. On the other hand when it's a 'good day' sequences of ones almost do not appear and your Luck goes over 60%. |
_________________
Hold him, thrill him, kick him, kill him!!! |
|
pushbloke
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2005 - 23:45 |
|
oh, well, thats all right then. ty for clearing that up.
ps, who made mojo censor |
|
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2005 - 00:20 |
|
"Danger, advice"
don't try to calculate or measure the unrandomness of the client just to play Bloodbowl, do it for the sher fun of it
memoricing probability tables for gfi-pass with all the variables may be isn't healthy, but trying to calculate them in a case by case basis will probably slow your play unless you are quick
it isn't that handsom and attractive to know the prob. of everything and it's distresing to know that the prob. of success of your opponent's action is quite high |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2005 - 00:38 |
|
| macike wrote: | I've made some probability calculations and here comes the outcome (in short):
- it is always worth to GFI once,
- it is always worth to GFI twice if you have a spare RR,
- it is worth to GFI twice if you have not a spare RR and your target roll is 5+ or 6+.
Please have in mind that 'target rolls' stands for what you need to roll after all modifiers are applied.
Please notice also that playing fumbbl games deals with pseudo random numbers and snake eyes are more likely to happen. |
did you notice that calculation were done on the very first link given? |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2005 - 00:41 |
|
| macike wrote: | | RedFish wrote: | | macike wrote: |
Please notice also that playing fumbbl games deals with pseudo random numbers and snake eyes are more likely to happen. |
It may be pseudo random but that does NOT mean snake eyes are more likely to happen |
I would agree that ONEs are not more likely to happen when we talk about a distribution.
But snake eyes is a sequence. Not mention the snake eyes re-roll resulting in snake eyes.
| Wikipedia wrote: | | Any PRNG run on a deterministic computer (contrast quantum computer) is a deterministic algorithm, its output will inevitably have one property that a true random sequence would not exhibit: guaranteed periodicity. |
If PRNG generates sequence of same dice roll (ONEs in particular) it is more likely to happen again than in the theoretical random case. This is because the periodicity is less likely to occur in the - infinite by definition - random number generator (ideal case).
Many of fumbbl coaches have experienced the sequences of ones so thus we know they are more likely to reoccur.
If it is a 'bad day' then one suffers from the sequence of ONEs and his Luck indicator goes below 45%. On the other hand when it's a 'good day' sequences of ones almost do not appear and your Luck goes over 60%. |
could you explain what you are telling here? I definitely think this will become quickly very interesting. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
astrosmurf
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2005 - 03:35 |
|
| tautology wrote: | It doesn't matter what you do, you will never succeed if it is turn 16 and you are going for the winning TD.
Unless you are my opponent, in which case you cannot fail! |
At least you haven't let it make you bitter. |
_________________
Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth. |
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2005 - 08:22 |
|
| pushbloke wrote: | | ps, who made mojo censor |
I did. I've been here long enough to have read dozens of "random numbers blah-blah-blah", threads. |
_________________
My post count
Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so. |
|
Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2005 - 08:58 |
|
The best thing to do before trying to contribute something new to one of them is to read all of the existing random number related topics in the forums .... if it's really something new (i.e. that hasn't been covered in (at least) one of the existing threads) then, and only then, should you think about whether it is actually worth writing a post about |
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2005 - 09:32 |
|
Oh, anything is worth writing a post about, but it's entirely a different thing whether or not you will get ridiculed because you post the same things that were dealt with extensively about 2 years ago. |
_________________
My post count
Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so. |
|
|
|
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
