Deck dice / fair dice

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,282
Reaction score
5,365
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
You guys are objecting to something I've remedied in post 11. There is a workable solution to both issues. Admittedly, you are trading one set of anomalies for another...
If I see two twelves relatively close together, I know that for somewhere around 80% of the deck (roughly the next 80 draws) there will be only one more twelve. Time to go to town with the ordnance. And if I see the third, hoo-boy, wear your safety orange because it's open season.

JR
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
731
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
If I see two twelves relatively close together, I know that for somewhere around 80% of the deck (roughly the next 80 draws) there will be only one more twelve. Time to go to town with the ordnance. And if I see the third, hoo-boy, wear your safety orange because it's open season.

JR
?Usually, you don't have the luxury of shooting or not shooting. What, are you going to not fire ordnance for another 50 DR's? More to the game than 2's and 12's...
Steve
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
527
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
On this topic, have you ever played with somebody that you suspect was using dice that weren't "fair." I've always thought, however impracticable, that the game should be played using the same dice.
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
731
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
On this topic, have you ever played with somebody that you suspect was using dice that weren't "fair." I've always thought, however impracticable, that the game should be played using the same dice.
In all my games (1200?) I've had one person I suspect was using loaded dice. That was at least 20 years ago. I've played a couple of other guys who I thought had "bad" dice, but I don't think they were cheating, per se. I think they were playing with their "lucky" dice. I use precision dice that I doubt have a meaningful bias. I will happily share dice if my opponent wants to. As the TD of the Albany tournament, my dice rule is this: "If you want to use your own dice then they have to be precision dice. Otherwise, your opponent can insist on sharing." Most guys have precision dice now so dice is not an issue, AFAIC...
Steve
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
812
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Berger

If he gets 'frustrated' with the card luck you are allowed to laugh at him.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,282
Reaction score
5,365
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
?Usually, you don't have the luxury of shooting or not shooting. What, are you going to not fire ordnance for another 50 DR's? More to the game than 2's and 12's...
I do not fire my guns when my chances of breaking are at/near my chances of a hit, but with some counter counting I don't have to. What I don't quite understand is why I have to work so hard to figure out what the cards I hold are. It would greatly simplify things if we were just dealt a handful of cards with numbers 2-12, and we could just play from that. That would make this much more playable.

JR
 

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
347
Reaction score
137
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
I think you are wrong, the normal dice are the precision dice. Non-precision dice are not allowed at casinos or at some ASL tournamemt due to the low production process.

This.
Deck dice, normal dice, precision dice or dice bots do not do not give a damn about which roll is important or unimportant for you.

von Marwitz
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,282
Reaction score
5,365
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
There are three possible results of introducing a card deck into ASL to replace dice rolling. One, it is indistinguishable from true dice. If you shuffle (well) after every result, or if you have an infinite (very large) number of cards (with a good shuffling mechanism), you would get that result. But it's indistinguishable from true dice, so why?

Two, it is very distinguishable from true dice. If you used one deck and did not reshuffle until the end of the deck, that would lead to very profitable card counting. Everyone (except perhaps the first-time player) would counts cards; no one would think twice about doing it.

Third you tried your hardest to make card-counting "difficult." You might use a large number of decks or shuffle more, but as you add decks and/or increase shuffling, you approach dice. As you reduce decks and/or decrease shuffling, you make card counting more profitable. You only hit a sweet spot if there is a number of decks/shuffles where all players are annoyed enough not to count but at the same time you don't have so large a number of cards/shuffles to eliminate normalization, i.e. the extreme tails (e.g. rolling nothing but twelves through an entire game) which a truly random process like rolling dice might generates are eliminated.

My guess is that no matter how annoying you make it, some players will count. That puts the faith in the game on the table. Did I lose because he's a luckier player, because he's a better player, or because he gained an advantage by counting cards? It's a bit like using loaded dice, but both players can opt to share the loaded dice if they choose.

JR
 
Last edited:

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
731
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
There are three possible results of introducing a card deck into ASL to replace dice rolling. One, it is indistinguishable from true dice. If you shuffle (well) after every result, or if you have an infinite (very large) number of cards (with a good shuffling mechanism), you would get that result. But it's indistinguishable from true dice, so why?

Two, it is very distinguishable from true dice. If you used one deck and did not reshuffle until the end of the deck, that would lead to very profitable card counting. Everyone (except perhaps the first-time player) would counts cards; no one would think twice about doing it.

Third you tried your hardest to make card-counting "difficult." You might use a large number of decks or shuffle more, but as you add decks and/or increase shuffling, you approach dice. As you reduce decks and/or decrease shuffling, you make card counting more profitable. You only hit a sweet spot if there is a number of decks/shuffles where all players are annoyed enough not to count but at the same time you don't have so large a number of cards/shuffles to eliminate normalization, i.e. the extreme tails (e.g. rolling nothing but twelves through an entire game) which a truly random process like rolling dice might generates are eliminated.

My guess is that no matter how annoying you make it, some players will count. That puts the faith in the game on the table. Did I lose because he's a luckier player, because he's a better player, or because he gained an advantage by counting cards? It's a bit like using loaded dice, but both players can opt to share the loaded dice if they choose.

JR
You continue with the straws man arguments...

You need a card deck that is less than or equal to the total number of DR in a game so that the averaging effect will take place. You need multiple decks to make card counting difficult, if not impossible. This is what the casinos do so if it works for them, it will work for an ASL scenario. I'm not claiming this is a great idea. I have no plans to use it. However, that doesn't mean it couldn't be implemented reasonably...
Steve
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,282
Reaction score
5,365
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
You continue with the straws man arguments...
I don't believe so. I believe I have enumerated all the possible states of the universe. I believe you are stating that the sweet spot, where no one counts but the results of the randomization are different from ordinary dice, exists. I am of the opinion that it does not. Even if you are right, can you convince everyone that it does? Otherwise you put the integrity of the game in question.

You need a card deck that is less than or equal to the total number of DR in a game so that the averaging effect will take place.
I'm not 100% I understand what you mean here. It might be an assertion that if the # of cards in the deck is > the number of DRs, no averaging/elimination of tails occurs. Consider a game with only two DRs. If you use a deck of 36 that will still have some averaging effects/elimination of tails. There will be no games with two twos or two twelves, as long as there was no shuffle between draws. The chances of rolling two threes or a pair of anything goes down. Even if the # of decks is > than the number of DRs, the odds that, for example, a game of all twos will be played is less than would be the case with dice. So averaging/elimination of tails is affected even if the # of decks exceeds the number of DRs, albeit it might not be by much. As the number of decks/cards decreases the averaging/elimination of tails decreases, but then the profit in counting cards increases.

edit: I shouldn't be using the phrase "elimination of tails." I mean instead, "reduction of tails," which in some cases may mean their elimination.

JR
 
Last edited:

Aaron Cleavin

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
3,093
Reaction score
570
Location
Sydney
Country
llAustralia
You guys are objecting to something I've remedied in post 11. There is a workable solution to both issues. Admittedly, you are trading one set of anomalies for another...
Steve
Custom card decks coe with 54 Cards * 2 = 108 which is 3* 2d6 Decks

I think 9 Decks with a cut card for Reshuffle inserted at about the 75% point would work.

I works for Black Jack and could work for ASL.

Settlers of Cataan would be the main target market though (Too many 7's really spoil it as a game)
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
584
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
I'll rephrase what I understand is JR's meaning. I mean, that was my initial goal - but I become verbose when it comes to probabilities.

Use of dice in the game design gives the normal result that, every time you roll the dice, no matter what happened in the past, each of the 36 possible results has a 1 in 36 probability of occurring. There is no possible calculation beyond that, no results counting. That makes it pretty easy to figure odds whenever you have a decision to make (Malfunction my B12 gun? 1 in 36. Malfunction my B12 gun on Intensive Fire? 1 in 6. Achieve a PTC or better on a 8FP+1 with no possibility of Cowering? 21 out of 36, or 7 out of 12. Every time). It also has the consequence that practical frequencies can deviate significantly from their predicted, long-term averages: rolling two 12s in a row is unlikely, but not that unlikely - if you play 10 games in a month, and roll dice 100 times in each game, it is likely to occur to you close to once a month.

If you use cards, and you shuffle perfectly between draws, then you can achieve this effect - even with just 36 cards, one of each possible result. This is a perfectly valid substitute to dice if, like what Robin said, you want to avoid the noise of dice rolling. Any other variation with a deck that you don't reshuffle after each draw, changes this. Your chances of rolling the same result twice in a row go down - dramatically, if you use a low number of repeats (and to zero, if you use only one of each result - except for those cases where you actually reshuffle between the two rolls).

Using a card deck in this fashion makes it a good move to count cards, because now, every time you need to make a decision, the odds depend on what happened (which results were obtained since the last time the deck was shuffled) in the past. Every time you need to decide whether to fire, or to Intensive Fire, this crucial weapon, the odds are different. If you're using a 108-card deck, and, say, 10 cards have been drawn, one of which is a 12, a new 12 will appear with probability 2/98 instead of 1/36: 2.04% instead of 2.78%. A smart player knows this, and will take advantage of it.

The end result is that you've made the game more complex and more cumbersome. Instead of focusing on the game, now you need to spend a lot of energy remembering what is remaining in the card deck - a lot of trivial information, but your ability to pick your best move depends on it.

In exchange for this, you get less variability of results. And if you want each player to be assured of his "fair share of good DRs", you of course need to have a deck for each player - twice as much card counting (the smart player needs to count the opponent's cards too, because what remains in the opponent's deck is just as important as his own).

Is it worth it? In my opinion, not at all. I'd rather take the natural randomness of the dice.
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
731
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
I don't believe so. I believe I have enumerated all the possible states of the universe. I believe you are stating that the sweet spot, where no one counts
No, I'm setting up the parameters so that counting is unlikely/impossible while still keeping the averaging aspect intact...
Steve
 

Sparafucil3

Elder Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,212
Reaction score
1,841
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
You guys are objecting to something I've remedied in post 11. There is a workable solution to both issues. Admittedly, you are trading one set of anomalies for another...
Steve
You can still count into 3 decks. It would be harder, but possible. The whole burying it into the bottom 20% won't stop me from saying "We have played 30 cards and the deck is hot". -- jim
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
731
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
You can still count into 3 decks. It would be harder, but possible. The whole burying it into the bottom 20% won't stop me from saying "We have played 30 cards and the deck is hot". -- jim
Sometimes. I would be willing to bet someone focusing on the card count would not be focusing on the game as much. What do you think is more important?
Steve
 

Sparafucil3

Elder Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,212
Reaction score
1,841
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Sometimes. I would be willing to bet someone focusing on the card count would not be focusing on the game as much. What do you think is more important?
Steve
Neither. Personally, I find focusing on my own emotions being the most important thing. I find when I let the luck factor get to me, I play worse. IMO, the game itself is pretty easy. Sure, there are a lot of rules and a lot of complexity, but when you break it down to brass tacks, there are only about 12 scenario types available (Hasty defense, attack against a hasty defense, prepared defense, attack against a prepared defense, meeting engagement, fighting withdrawal, etc). Once you have played one, you have a pretty good idea of what you need to do in all others. It becomes about repetition. The best I ever did at ASLOk, I felt like crap and wasn't sleeping well. I decided my only choice was to play aggressively, try to push my opponent into tough choices, and live with what the dice gave. I finished 3rd in the GROFAZ. I took the same approach into Texas and won it. When I get away from that mentality, I let the dice beat me more than my opponent. That's not to diminish my opponent, most of them are very good players to begin with. I just find I take myself out of the game and ease their burden and they are usually more than capable of seizing on that advantage and putting me away. -- jim
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,849
Reaction score
3,055
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
I think you are wrong, the normal dice are the precision dice. Non-precision dice are not allowed at casinos or at some ASL tournamemt due to the low production process.
ASL is not a commercial thing like running a casino is. If you want to calculate your profits beforehand or large sums of money are involved, precision dice might help.

And luckily, there is also nothing otherwise important at stake when playing ASL. It is a game. If people take the game too seriously, so that the difference of precision dice and normal dice would really have become important, then something is wrong.

So let me pose the question to you:

Have you ever made the test to establish what the difference of the bell curves are when comparing any (low production process) set of dice as found in any of MMP's boxed core modules and any set of your precision dice based on a sample of 1000 DRs? Or has anyone else?

I do not want to tease you or anyone else. I am honestly interested in establishing what extent of difference we are talking about. If we have some data available, then our arguments either way may gain or lose some weight.

To put facts behind my words, I did the work. I am not into math, so I leave it to the number-crunchers to figure out the results that can be pulled from the data:

Sample of 1000 DRs of BV3 dice rolled the way I usually do (no dice tower, dice cup on desk):


DR number of times my dice number of times expected with "perfect" die
2 24 27.77777777
3 46 55.55555555
4 79 83.33333333
5 107 111.111111111
6 138 138.888888888
7 159 166.666666666
8 141 138.888888888
9 125 111.111111111
10 80 83.3333333333
11 72 55.5555555555
12 23 27.7777777777

My DR average in 1000 rolls is 7099, the "perfect" expected DR average would be 7000.
I believe up to now, nobody considers whining about the dice or is convinced that the injustice of it all would warrant the mandatory requirement of precision dice.

From here on, please, math-gurus, correct me if I have screwed up somewhere. As abovementioned, I am not into math.

Emiprical variance for my dice would be:

24 * (2-7.099)² +
46 * (3-7.099)² +
49 * (4-7.099)² +
107 * (5-7.099)² +
138 * (6-7.099)² +
159 * (7-7.099)² +
141 * (8-7.099)² +
125 * (9-7.099)² +
80 * (10-7.099)² +
72 * (11-7.099)² +
23 * (12-7.099)² = 6199.82

6199.82 / 1000 (i.e. # of sample) = 6.19982 = Empirical variance for my dice @ a 1000 sample.

Now Empicial variance for "perfect" dice:

27.77 * (2-7)² +
55.55 * (3-7)² +
83.33 * (4-7)² +
111.11 * (5-7)² +
138.88 * (6-7)² +
166.66 * (7-7)² +
138.88 * (8-7)² +
111.11 * (9-7)² +
83.33 * (10-7)² +
55.55 * (11-7)² +
27.77 * (12-7)² = 5833.33

5833.33 / 1000 = 5,83333 = Empicical variance for "perfect" dice @ a 1000 sample.

Standard deviation would be the square root of Empirical variance.

√6.19982 = 2.48994 is the Standard deviation for my dice @ a 1000 sample.
√5.83333 = 2.41523 is the Standard deviation for "perfect" dice @ a 1000 sample.

If I understand it correctly, this would mean that with my dice @ a 1000 sample, I can expect to roll

7099 +/- 2.48994% or in other words between 6998.26 and 7147.27.

"Perfect" dice @ a 1000 sample could expect to roll

7000 +/- 2.41523% or in other words between 6915.47 and 7084.53.

Well, so with my low production process dice my sample is exceeding the Standard Deviation of "perfect" dice by 14.5 pips in 1000 DRs (factual 7099 as opposed to 7084.53 what is within Standard Deviation for "perfect dice"). What a scandal. I am devastated.

Now granted, worst that could conceivably be expected to happen to me within the range of the Standard deviation of "perfect" dice pitted against my low production process BV3 ones could be a

DR average of 6.916 against 7.147 in 1000 DRs to my disfavor.

I am crushed. Oh, the injustice of it. It must have turned the game against me. Seriously? I better not even comtemplate that at the same time within expectations it could have optimally turned out to be a

DR average of 6.998 against 7.085 in 1000 DRs to my favor.


At this point, I find it very hard to understand people insisting upon precision dice making a significant difference.

Have I just been lucky with the set of low production process dice of BV3?

Not impossible, but rather unlikely I would think. Everybody, please feel invited to provide your 1000 DR sample to broaden the database. And note that I have pitched my dice against "perfect" dice. Not against precision dice which will fall off against "perfect" dice somewhat.

So as a bottom line based on the above, I conclude that precision dice do not matter for the purposes of ASL. What they might matter for is to soothe superstition, the promise of more "security" and so on. They obviously calm the psyche of some. I perfectly fine with people who see the need to use precision dice for whatever reason.

But I cannot follow people that try to tell me using precision dice or not has in itself any significant impact on the game and therefore their use should be made mandatory for tournaments etc. Even less I can accept people that allege dishonest motives if people do not use or decline their use.

DR average of 6.916 against 7.147 in 1000 DRs to my disfavor.
DR average of 6.998 against 7.085 in 1000 DRs to my favor.

I am convinced that the above differences are not what usually decides tournaments.
It's the differences of the skill levels of players that do which deviate at a greater extent as to allow for a significant impact of the above DR average differences.
And it's when you roll crap or superb that matters.


Cheers,
von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
731
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
von Marwitz,
I didn't go through the math in detail, but it generally looks correct. The only thing I would call into question is testing two dice at once. They could have offsetting errors. One could roll low while the other rolls high. Your experiment relies on the dice being identical. I think this is an error. Dice are not identical. Precision dice are very close to identical and for all practical reasons are identical.
Steve
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
812
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Neither. Personally, I find focusing on my own emotions being the most important thing. I find when I let the luck factor get to me, I play worse. IMO, the game itself is pretty easy. Sure, there are a lot of rules and a lot of complexity, but when you break it down to brass tacks, there are only about 12 scenario types available (Hasty defense, attack against a hasty defense, prepared defense, attack against a prepared defense, meeting engagement, fighting withdrawal, etc). Once you have played one, you have a pretty good idea of what you need to do in all others. It becomes about repetition. The best I ever did at ASLOk, I felt like crap and wasn't sleeping well. I decided my only choice was to play aggressively, try to push my opponent into tough choices, and live with what the dice gave. I finished 3rd in the GROFAZ. I took the same approach into Texas and won it. When I get away from that mentality, I let the dice beat me more than my opponent. That's not to diminish my opponent, most of them are very good players to begin with. I just find I take myself out of the game and ease their burden and they are usually more than capable of seizing on that advantage and putting me away. -- jim
This is the breakthrough to good ASL play. Getting mad and complaining works sometimes (rarely really) in life but never in ASL. A player needs every brain cell focusing at the problem at hand. Funny thing it seems, the less I care the better I roll.
 
Top