Phase 2- How To Play:= A Game of Luck
Three easy steps:

1)Choose
2)Challenge
3)Chart

*********
1)Choose:= Pick one category or pick a few, also include subcategory. If you don't currently like any of the 8 categories feel free to discuss changing one or adding more. I have collected opinions on "luck" from all over this website, please choose what you feel best describes you.

---Main Category:
Lucky Warrior:= Luck favors the bold... Guns blazing, bullets flying, let the dice land where they may...
Lucky Magician:= Luck favors the ritual... Charms, chants, superstitions, gestures, dances, song, or projections of energy shall win the day...
Lucky Divinity:= Luck favors the blessed... Prayer and meditation shall bestow the gift of luck upon thee...
Lucky Logician:= Luck favors no one... With my understanding of probabilities, and through my actions, I might be able to perceivably stack odds in my favor...
Lucky Enforcer:= If Luck favors one thing, destroy the other things... I might not be able to control luck, but I can beat unluckiness into submission...
Lucky Irony:= Luck favors a good joke... What can go wrong, will go wrong, so I prepare for the worst and hope the joke is not on me...
Lucky Chaos:= Luck favors the random... Gravitational pull from the stars or seismic activity from butterflies flapping their wings can change the outcome of a dice roll more than I can.
Luckless:= Luck does not exist... There are only the cold hard apathetic laws of science and math...
Indifferent:= Lucky favors? Ehh... This is a game of chance, mathematical probabilities and luck can't change anything, so just let me roll my dice...

---Subcategory:
Variable Luck:= (v)... We create our own luck and, to a degree, we can control how lucky we get.
Binary Luck:= (+)n... I consider myself to be lucky, but we can not change it. .
Binary Luck:= (-)ff... I do not consider myself lucky or otherwise, we can not change it.

2)Challenge:= Create a gaming scenario for others to roll "against" you. Any kind of scenario, any game, or any type of dice.

3)Chart:= BE HONEST! We all must be completely honest and trust in the honor system. Record what you rolled, post what you recorded. Also include in your post, any information that might be relevant to your chosen category of luck or the challenge you accepted.

Challenge #1: (make two attempts)
a) How many tries does it take for you to roll double six using 3d6?

b) My troops inflicted 2 wounds against your troops; pick a basic troop choice from your favorite 40k codex and roll 2d6 to save. Roll 5+ if you don't normally play 40k. Count how many times it takes for you to pass with both dice.

c) You are trying to pick the lock on a treasure chest, roll one d20, you succeed on a roll of 15 or above. You have one chance to get this right before a trap is sprung, so you can only roll once.

--------------------------------
Examples of Made up Imaginary Responses to the Examples from Above:
a) It took me 27 tries to roll double six with 3d6. I noticed that my blue dice never rolled higher than 3, I think it might have an imperfection so I'm not going to use that one any more. Luckless:= (-)

b) I picked Space Marines as my troop choice, they needed to roll 3+. I rolled 1 and 2 using a lucky rabbit foot... Then I tried again with out the rabbit foot and I rolled double six. Now I don't use that rabbit's foot any more. Lucky Magician:=(v)

c) Picked the lock on my first try, rolled a 17. I was feeling lucky so I didn't hesitate to roll. Lucky Warrior:= (+)
--------------------------------

Challenge #2: (make two attempts)
a) How many times can you roll 3d6, and not roll any doubles? (this one can generate some wins for you; but you must stop as soon as you roll a double, at which time it counts as 1 loss. Remember to count how many times you roll.)

b) Blow up my 40k vehicle, with an armor value of 11. If you don't normally play 40k, roll 5+. (one shot, one kill)

c) We are playing the Monopoly game. You are close to bankrupting by landing on my Park Place or Board Walk, both with hotels... Roll 2d6, you have one chance to see if you can get 7 or greater to make it past "GO" and collect your $200 instead. If you roll doubles equaling higher than 7, it counts as a bonus point for a Win. (since, in the Monopoly game, that would mean you get to go again.)

Phase 2: Purpose is to both have fun and gather more data for the math heads to chew on. This type of study/game play gives people a chance to test their luck against other categories of luck or lucklessness. By creating game like scenarios, we can simulate the desire to succeed when rolling. This also gives an opportunity to freely practice as many lucky rituals, as you may want, with out a delay of game penalty. Most importantly, with this type of blind study it helps prevent cross contamination. When opponents are directly in front of each other, they can potentially project an aura of bad luck towards the opposing player or dice. With this style of competition we may never know who or when some one is rolling against us.

*************

Phase 1: Original Post Nov/08/2010. The purpose of phase 1 was to gather opinions on how to define luck.

I think luck is merely the fulfillment of human love for symbolism. Humans are symbolistic creatures, everything from religion to science to even our basic words and phrases are symbolic or can be symbolic in one form or another, and acknowledging "luck" is merely our way of saying "So and so beat the odds"

Is it "lucky" if I cause Instant Death on an opposing character, or roll 3 6's? Yes, but in a purely realistic sense, all I did was receive an unlikely result. Because it was beneficial to me, it's called good luck. If I roll 3 1's in a row, as it's detrimental to me, it's called bad luck. Again, it's really just humans putting faith in a symbol for something.

Not that I don't believe in luck, or getting lucky, just that if we look at it, it's really just a symbol for an unlikely result.

Thing is, we can look at a person and say they’ve been more lucky than not. It happens. There are guys who win major poker tournaments despite being poor players, because they got a streak of good cards, and the got their luckiest cards in the biggest hands.

But the thing is that previous ‘luck’ doesn’t mean a person is any more or any less likely to get lucky on the next random event.

I don't see why it has to be called anything, i'm fine with people having their own opinions on it as long as nobody starts having a go at them for using whichever description they think is right.

If I say "bad luck" to someone, i don't expect to be lectured on how luck doesn't exist or anything like that. I call it luck. Live with it. Similarly if I said "poor streak of unlikely dice rolls in quick succession" I don't wish to be told it's called luck.

As long as the people who call it luck respect the opinions of those who don't believe it is luck and vice versa by not forcing their views onto them, I don't see where the problem lies.

There are two factors to someone being "lucky".

Firstly, they get random results with a probability distribution significantly different to the standard.
Secondly, those unusually good results have to occur at significant times.

example
1. You're dealt twice as many aces as expected during a game of poker.
2. Those aces are dealt to you in groups or when there are aces on the table.

Is there such a thing as a mystical force determining how random chance effects one person differently than another? No.

But, "luck" doesn't mean that, it means that someone has gotten results that are better/worse than the expected results. If you want to get really technical, I'd say "luck" means you've gotten a result more than 2 standard deviations from the expected results.

Ive never wanted to sit and do this myself, but Ive always wanted to have some sort of magical familiar sitting next to me during a game and counting all of my dice rolls, telling me what my average roll was and what my opponents average roll was. I would also want to know what were those rolls during "critical" rolls, like a Ld check for Fateweaver or something like that. I am under the firm beleif that the dice will always average out, its just that it seems sometimes that the high rolls come during morale, and low during shooting/melee.

During games sometimes I will think to myself, I am due for a good roll and make a gamble based on that. Sometimes I will throw a unit into melee knowing I will probably die, but I have a 20-40% chance of having one model survive, and Ill take those odds because it could be game changing. The thing about the math is, its helpful for unknown situations, but there are so many rolls in this game, that you cant figureout odds for every turn or it would take too long, you are better off playiong alot and saying.."usually my Great Unclean One survives this amount of fire, or this unit beats that unit in melee". You just put most the game into your experience pouch.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:I am under the firm beleif that the dice will always average out, its just that it seems sometimes that the high rolls come during morale, and low during shooting/melee.

Well, they'll average out, but you'll still be left with a Bell curve. Some games, you will simply end up rolling poorly overall and other games you'll roll really well. With a large enough sample size, the difference between "poor" and "well" isn't much, but it will still be there.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:During games sometimes I will think to myself, I am due for a good roll and make a gamble based on that.

Don't do that! Past results have no baring on future rolls. Even if you've rolled incredibly poorly, the dice aren't going to make it up to you. Thinking they will roll anything other than "average" will result in poor tactical decisions.

I get tired of hearing people blaming their dice.

Bad luck is what you can blame when your dice are crap at critical times, and good luck is what you blame when your opponent rolls good when it's critical to beat you.

It's an attempt to say "I didn't lose, it was the dice." or "My opponent didn't win, it was his dice".

We remember the critical rolls, and ignore the other 99%.

Roll a dice enough times, it always averages out. (Assuming we are talking about fair dice to start with.)

Grakmar wrote:

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:During games sometimes I will think to myself, I am due for a good roll and make a gamble based on that.

Don't do that! Past results have no baring on future rolls. Even if you've rolled incredibly poorly, the dice aren't going to make it up to you. Thinking they will roll anything other than "average" will result in poor tactical decisions.

Good advice here ^

What you're experiencing is called the Gambler's Fallacy:

The Gambler's Fallacy is committed when a person assumes that a departure from what occurs on average or in the long term will be corrected in the short term. The form of the fallacy is as follows:


X has happened.
X departs from what is expected to occur on average or over the long term.
Therefore, X will come to an end soon.
There are two common ways this fallacy is committed. In both cases a person is assuming that some result must be "due" simply because what has previously happened departs from what would be expected on average or over the long term.

The first involves events whose probabilities of occuring are independent of one another. For example, one toss of a fair (two sides, non-loaded) coin does not affect the next toss of the coin. So, each time the coin is tossed there is (ideally) a 50% chance of it landing heads and a 50% chance of it landing tails. Suppose that a person tosses a coin 6 times and gets a head each time. If he concludes that the next toss will be tails because tails "is due", then he will have committed the Gambler's Fallacy. This is because the results of previous tosses have no bearing on the outcome of the 7th toss. It has a 50% chance of being heads and a 50% chance of being tails, just like any other toss.

The second involves cases whose probabilities of occuring are not independent of one another. For example, suppose that a boxer has won 50% of his fights over the past two years. Suppose that after several fights he has won 50% of his matches this year, that he his lost his last six fights and he has six left. If a person believed that he would win his next six fights because he has used up his losses and is "due" for a victory, then he would have committed the Gambler's Fallacy. After all, the person would be ignoring the fact that the results of one match can influence the results of the next one. For example, the boxer might have been injured in one match which would lower his chances of winning his last six fights.

(http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/gamblers-fallacy.html)

As an aside, though, I'm a huge proponent of luck and I am superstitious. And none of these explanations take into account things like Chaos Theory. Isn't it lucky that the wind blew in Singapore and affected the draft that came through your town when you flipped that coin and won the toss?

I recently wrote a series of blog posts about this very idea! (if you're interested: http://andyszymas.blogspot.com/search/label/Signs)

There are two lines of thought of luck.

1. The Clustering Illusion - look it up on wikipedia.This is what a few posters have mentioned above - that we look for luck and notice it in randomness. Basically, our mind is attuned to see clusters of statistically unlikely results and chalk that up to luck. If you want to take a scientific, logical, point of view, there you go.

2. The next idea is that of "affirmations" which is an idea I first read about from Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert). Affirmations, in Adams' experience, is a process wherein you write down something you want twenty five times. Do this for a few months, and what you want comes true. Adams' reveals several outlandish times he used this method to success - including using it to become a world famous cartoonist. These stories are of course anecdotal and from Adam's own life, so take them with a grain of salt. But, what Adams says, in a literal sense, is that you make your own luck. It has a lot to do with metaphysics and quantum relationships that's a bit above me.

I think it's interesting that there is at least elements of truth in both of these. It's pretty easy to prove the clustering illusion - look back at your 40k games - you remember outlying results. You don't remember when you roll average. But there is truth in the next idea too - there are a lot of studies that show that people who don't know they are being prayed for actually recover from illness faster than people who are not being prayed for.

Anyway, it's interesting.

+1 to 2 above. Try doing a battle report and keep track of your hit/wound/they save rolls. I find that it feels like my opponent makes most of his ork's saves but typing it up after shows that it was about average.

As I stated in the last post... The game, in a perfect world, should be balanced to the point where EVERY unit has it's specific uses. You should be able to take just about anything you want, from any list you want, and if you can bring it to bear effectively you will do well. In that I mean you want to apply your force to tasks that they will statiscally do very well in.. You want to can keep your skirmish units out of combat and keep them harrassing other units, you want to keep your fat units in combat for most of the game, you want to keep firing your heaviest weapons at the most vulnerable, high value targets.

How I define 'Luck', as it pertains to gaming, is a 'gross discrepancy from the average' and where it comes into play most is when you take a unit and do something it's not meant to do and have it succeed, or to have a unit do something it normally excells at only to have it fail horribly. It's not really something you can anticipate or count on, as a wild variation from the average is such a rarity.

When you take a unit of berserkers and charge it into a soft squishy unit, or when you fire a bunch of heavy weapons at lightly armored vehicles or units you dont want luck rearing it's head there... you want the expected to happen. In an ideal game, where you are using your army effectively, luck isn't a tool to use to further victory. It's something you want to avoid at all costs. If you need luck to help you out it's because you're already on the ropes.

Luck is a way that humans rationalise random occurrences.

In the poker tournament mentioned above, the lucky player who won because he got a good hand, is balanced by the unlucky player in the same game, who got a bad hand.

The randomness of the card distribution ignores the seating of the players, but individually they experience a good or bad result, and rationalise it as luck.

Clustering is a normal thing in random distribution. If you roll a pair of dice 1,000 times, it would be very non-random not to observe some clusters in the results.

I do not believe the two things are mutually exclusive. Each is an attribute of predictability. Statistics is a measure of past predictability and trend impacts towards furture predicatbility. Luck is an attribute of failures of predictability, positive or negative.

"Odds are in your favor" and "you are lucky." Are each false statements. The failure of statistics and luck are in the failure to recognize they are momentary and fleeting. The two assert past events impact on future events impacts when in fact the future events are independent. Statistics wants to assert that if you go through an infinite number of cycles the trend will be a consistent one. Luck wants to assert an explanation on seemingly irrational moment. Both require a continued course of action.

For either to be more than an attribute of a period of time they must continue past the moment you "meaure" them. The ability to just walk away nullifies the possibility of those trends impact future happenings. In action means the trends collapse but for both to be all governing as either group ascribes they would need to stand independent of time and cycles.

This is all fantastic stuff so far people, keep it up.

I'm at work right now, so it takes me a while to type out an in depth response, spell check it, and submit it... But I just wanted to pop on here real quick and say thanks for all the input so far.

We will need both logic minded people and superstitious type people to really charge through the looking glass and demand some form of results. I think there are plenty of us on this site with plenty of ideas from both categories that this could work.

I think the reason luck has been deemed a fallacy, is because no one had access to such a huge database of info like Dakka Dakka. Until now.

Here is a funny story I'd like to share about "luck":

I own the Lord of the Rings version of the board game Risk. Instead of a map of this Earth and our land masses, it is a map of Middle Earth from the J.R.R Tolkien books; for those of you not familiar with this version of Risk. Also included with the game is your very own copy of "The One Ring"... I have noticed whom ever wears "The One Ring", even though it is not the actual ring of power, rolls considerably better than every one else and usually wins the game. Oddly enough though, the same ring wont work in any other game...

luck is bestowed upon mere mortals by the gods...

one can not test or force it.

the lady luck will never come to those who rely upon her.

as the old saying goes:

its a million to one but it might just work...

vik

I tend not to play to the odds, often trusting to sheer chance, and ergo luck to carry me through a game. Damnedest thing is, my biggest victories come from balls to wall outright risk taking! Always seems to pay off.

Heck, even when some part of the plan fails (ill timed batch of 1's etc) it somehow comes out alright in the end.

I contest there is such a thing as luck, and it's to do with a person's attitude. Take my above statement about my play style. My 'luck' is more likely to be my opponent being caught off guard by an unlikely manouvere, and my familiarity with off the cuff tactics to keep them off guard.

Part of the reason I'm liking 8th Edition is the increase in the no. of dice rolled eliminating luck (or unlikely results ) and moving the focus to strategy and movement. Most of the time you pretty much know the outcome of a combat before it happens, but where it is evenly matched those slightly odd results can tip things into or out of your favour.

Mr Mystery wrote:I tend not to play to the odds, often trusting to sheer chance, and ergo luck to carry me through a game. Damnedest thing is, my biggest victories come from balls to wall outright risk taking! Always seems to pay off.

Heck, even when some part of the plan fails (ill timed batch of 1's etc) it somehow comes out alright in the end.

I contest there is such a thing as luck, and it's to do with a person's attitude. Take my above statement about my play style. My 'luck' is more likely to be my opponent being caught off guard by an unlikely manouvere, and my familiarity with off the cuff tactics to keep them off guard.

Is there anything special that you do when you go on your outright risk taking adventures? Like a special way you shake the dice, a special song you play on the radio, a dance or gesture?

Or is there any kind of "feeling" you get in your gut, that lets you know to go ahead with the risk? Maybe even a tickling feeling in your pinky toe or nose or something? Any thing at all, that might be a common thread that binds your victories together. However, this "feeling" lucky might be different person to person, but we wont know that until we start searching. We might find something common within us all.

Scientifically speaking, the act of observation can change that which is being observed. Put a camera in a person's face and their whole attitude changes. Try and measure some one's luck, they might start to disbelieve themselves, start to feel unlucky. The whole scientific method of experimental due process could corrupt the very data we are trying to record. SO DON'T LET IT!

This is part of the reason we need both logical and illogical thoughts. True, "luck" has not logically been found and measured out yet, but we should still move forward. The logical side of luck has been beaten to death, let us pick up the pieces and arrange them into different patterns. Perhaps we can find the missing link.

Again, you can get 'lucky'. In any given game, one player will likely have ended up rolling better dice than the other person. It might have affected the final result, it might not. When you look at the critical roles, there's more chance the difference in the average rolls was greater, which again might have affected the final result, but it might not have.

Basically, it is certainly possible to have been lucky. But that does not predict future luck, it doesn't even predict the next dice roll. While a person may end up ahead or behind on good rolls or bad, it doesn't impact the next dice roll at all.

People can certainly be more successful when they perceive themselves to be 'lucky'. If someone thinks they're being lucky they'll generally be more aggressive, and take more positive actions, which can lead to success and reinforcement of their original belief. If someone thinks they're unlucky they'll be more negative, and start making decisions that make failure and the perception of more 'bad luck' more likely. This may lead people to believe that some people are lucky, when really their belief in their good luck is just leading them to make better decisions, furthering their own perception of their 'luck'.

Any equation using nothing but constants, will produce a constant product.
2 + 2 will constantly = 4. Nothing we do can change that.

Any equation using nothing but variables, will produce a variable product.
X + Y = unknown Z. We can have all kinds of products with so many options to change.

Simple stuff so far, right?

An equation can have a constant as the actual product of the equation, and the only variables in this situation, are how we get to that product.
X + Y = 10 then X & Y can both equal 5; or X=4 and Y=6 etc... etc... But the end product will always be 10; can not change that.

An equation with variables mixed with constants all on the wrong side of the equals sign, will produce a variable product.
X + 5 - Y = Z. What variables we change here will change the product.

Before we roll the dice, we do not know the end product. What are dice? Little cubes of variable chance right? Well, believe it or not, for this little experimental theoretical equation: Dice are the constant. We are the variables. And the Product is still unknown.

Still with me? I'm going to try and take you on a little trip down the rabbit hole.
(I'm also going to try and do this with out ending up going cross eyed crazy and blowing bubbles with my spit.)

How can dice be a constant!?!
Well, if I want to roll a 6, I will constantly have a 1 in 6 chance. If I want to roll 4+, I will constantly have a 50% chance. If I leave the dice alone, there is a 100% chance it will stay that way until some other variable comes along and changes it.
If we leave the equation simply: Dice1 + Dice2 = Constant odds; we wont get very far with this experiment.

What changes is us, and what we do to the dice... Example: we may roll extra dice, we may shake them in a cup, we may toss them in the air and project a positive flux of energy, or we may flick them like a booger and project negative energy. Just like with math equations, what we do as variables can change the product.

(Us * lucky_variable) + Dice = Unknown Variable Product

The dice part of the equation predicts the end result towards a probable product based on constant odds. (may not always produce the product we want but the odds do not change)
And what we do as the variable, based on random willy nilly sillyness, also changes the product as well. (may not always produce the product we want but it sure is fun to dance a jig)

The point of this experiment is to try and find common "luck", or what ever you want to call it. Once we find it, the gaming industry will never be the same

Psyker_9er wrote:How can dice be a constant!?!
Well, if I want to roll a 6, I will constantly have a 1 in 6 chance. If I want to roll 4+, I will constantly have a 50% chance. If I leave the dice alone, there is a 100% chance it will stay that way until some other variable comes along and changes it.
If we leave the equation simply: Dice1 + Dice2 = Constant odds; we wont get very far with this experiment.

What changes is us, and what we do to the dice... Example: we may roll extra dice, we may shake them in a cup, we may toss them in the air and project a positive flux of energy, or we may flick them like a booger and project negative energy. Just like with math equations, what we do as variables can change the product.

If you want to go down that rabbit hole you have to realise that we people aren’t actually random, either. We’re made of atoms, following chemical reactions and physical reactions the same as the die is. Just like we lack knowledge to know what side a fast spinning die will land, we similarly lack the knowledge to fully predict how a person will act. But that doesn’t make him in anyway unique to the die or somehow inherently different, just a lot more complex.

This takes you to the next step in understanding what probability really is. Thing is, you’re trying to find some element of true randomness, but no such thing needs to exist to have a random event. All that needs to exist is for the final result to be unknown. Consider a random number generator – where the result isn’t known, but is pre-determined. Probability still applies, and if we played a game of 40K with random numbers one of us would still end up luckier than the other, to a greater or lesser extent.

Identifying the true random element in the mechanical process is both unnecessary and impossible – what matters is the range of possible outcomes and likelihood of each.

The point of this experiment is to try and find common "luck", or what ever you want to call it. Once we find it, the gaming industry will never be the same

What you’re effectively talking about is magic. Once you’ve properly identified that then I dare say you’ll end up changing more than gaming. I do wish you good luck, though, because plenty of people tried before you and didn’t really get anywhere.

To me luck is a mixture of preperation and opportunity. Simple as,

-Gib-

Psyker_9er wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:I tend not to play to the odds, often trusting to sheer chance, and ergo luck to carry me through a game. Damnedest thing is, my biggest victories come from balls to wall outright risk taking! Always seems to pay off.

Heck, even when some part of the plan fails (ill timed batch of 1's etc) it somehow comes out alright in the end.

I contest there is such a thing as luck, and it's to do with a person's attitude. Take my above statement about my play style. My 'luck' is more likely to be my opponent being caught off guard by an unlikely manouvere, and my familiarity with off the cuff tactics to keep them off guard.

Is there anything special that you do when you go on your outright risk taking adventures? Like a special way you shake the dice, a special song you play on the radio, a dance or gesture?

Or is there any kind of "feeling" you get in your gut, that lets you know to go ahead with the risk? Maybe even a tickling feeling in your pinky toe or nose or something? Any thing at all, that might be a common thread that binds your victories together. However, this "feeling" lucky might be different person to person, but we wont know that until we start searching. We might find something common within us all.

Scientifically speaking, the act of observation can change that which is being observed. Put a camera in a person's face and their whole attitude changes. Try and measure some one's luck, they might start to disbelieve themselves, start to feel unlucky. The whole scientific method of experimental due process could corrupt the very data we are trying to record. SO DON'T LET IT!

This is part of the reason we need both logical and illogical thoughts. True, "luck" has not logically been found and measured out yet, but we should still move forward. The logical side of luck has been beaten to death, let us pick up the pieces and arrange them into different patterns. Perhaps we can find the missing link.

Nope. No juju or ritual for me. Just a little 'ha HA!' type charging. You know you've done it right by the look of horror on your opponents face as you hit combat a turn earlier than he anticipated. Even better when opting to flee just makes things worse!

for a true warrior there is only one way, straight forward! charge! and if you get sloughtered then lucks directly chained to fate.
you either win big or loose big. nothing in between. its the same with beeing pregnant, there is einter pregnancy or not. i live in a world of black and white , no greys here...

I think everyone is forgetting good ol Tzeench in this discussion. There is no luck, we are all caught up in his grand plan. Blowing your opponent off the table, might force him to turn to the chaos gods, who will then use him as a suicide bomber to blow up a bus full of children. The parents of one of the kids will then be filled with rage, which in turn will spawn a couple more khorn demons in the warp. These demons will attack a research facility working on a highly unstable time machine. The battle will trigger the machine, and one helpless demon will be sent to the year 2011, and wind up on stage with Miley Cyrus as she is performing. It will then go on to rip her to shreds, saving all of us.

Its useless to try and make sense of it all

Cryonicleech wrote:I think luck is merely the fulfillment of human love for symbolism. Humans are symbolistic creatures, everything from religion to science to even our basic words and phrases are symbolic or can be symbolic in one form or another, and acknowledging "luck" is merely our way of saying "So and so beat the odds"

Like Button

sebster wrote:What you’re effectively talking about is magic. Once you’ve properly identified that then I dare say you’ll end up changing more than gaming. I do wish you good luck, though, because plenty of people tried before you and didn’t really get anywhere.

Luck, Magic, Jedi Mind Tricks, Juju, Mojo, Voodoo, Energy, Warp Powers... That is what phase 1 of this project is about, trying to locate and put a name to this force that has been elusive for far too long. If we want to have Psyker powers and fight against Warp Beasts in the year 40,000 we had better start figuring this stuff out now.

sebster wrote:
If you want to go down that rabbit hole you have to realize that we people aren’t actually random, either. We’re made of atoms, following chemical reactions and physical reactions the same as the die is. Just like we lack knowledge to know what side a fast spinning die will land, we similarly lack the knowledge to fully predict how a person will act. But that doesn’t make him in anyway unique to the die or somehow inherently different, just a lot more complex.

Right right.... The random elements are more or less what we are trying to remove in a sense. If we discover this common energy/force/luck/magic and randomness will be almost entirely out of the picture. We wouldn't have to predict what the dice will roll exactly, we would simply be able change the energies surrounding those dice to better fit our needs. (With out the use of loaded cheating dice)

And if we do find this energy, it would not be cheating to make use of it. Once we spread the word then the game would be more like a battle of the mind and not a game of odds.

But for now, we are still trying to gather info.

Any one have any other crazy, odd, different, or seemingly insignificant info they would like to share? What we are trying to find here goes beyond just the symbolism of luck. If it has been hidden for all these years, it might just be something so small you over look it. A nose itch just before you roll, or a tickle in the back of the eye lid... Anything at all really, and that is part of what makes this so difficult and seem to some as impossible and not worth the effort.

Sometimes I have noticed a feeling of dread just before I roll, and usually I fail at rolling the dice afterward. We can try and gather info about "bad luck" too, they are both related good and bad. One might help us identify the other.

during my tme at wow i read a whole lot about a problem called account a and account b. you might call it sunny side and dark side if you want. the short version is during your very first moments it is determined to what account your characters will be formed. good loot will always come to the sunny accounts. whereas the crap always was in my rolls...
so luck is for me determined by other factors...outside ones at that...
but i also happen to meet those happy people, the ones with that constant honest happy halo around them. does them being lucky make them happy or being happy all the time makes them lucky? cant help me someone there?

vik

Psyker_9er wrote:Luck, Magic, Jedi Mind Tricks, Juju, Mojo, Voodoo, Energy, Warp Powers... That is what phase 1 of this project is about, trying to locate and put a name to this force that has been elusive for far too long. If we want to have Psyker powers and fight against Warp Beasts in the year 40,000 we had better start figuring this stuff out now.

You really need to consider the possibility that it is elusive because it might not exist. There is also the possibility that it is elusive because that is the nature of it, once known it ceases to be and all that.

Both of those are much, much more likely than the odds that you'll be able to isolate and verify this magic thing you're talking about.

Right right.... The random elements are more or less what we are trying to remove in a sense. If we discover this common energy/force/luck/magic and randomness will be almost entirely out of the picture. We wouldn't have to predict what the dice will roll exactly, we would simply be able change the energies surrounding those dice to better fit our needs. (With out the use of loaded cheating dice)

You're welcome to believe all of that if you want, but you shouldn't take it for granted that anyone does.

Bad dice need to be properly trained.
Line them all up on the cement.
Pull every 10th die out, and in front of the rest, smash it with a hammer.

That will teach them to fail back to back Ld10 tests (with re-rolls).


I would say that as a population, everything averages out. But I also believe that some people are going to be toward one end of the bell curve, while others are at the other end. So as a population, we average out.

Since I believe that lucky people are influenced by the need of an outcome, you wouldn't be able to easily test this in a lab.

Additionally, I believe that people may influence the luck of those around them.


Read a few books on physicists who have gone crazy while researching the nature of the world and you'll get an igea of what I am talking about.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:I would say that as a population, everything averages out. But I also believe that some people are going to be toward one end of the bell curve, while others are at the other end. So as a population, we average out.

Since I believe that lucky people are influenced by the need of an outcome, you wouldn't be able to easily test this in a lab.

Additionally, I believe that people may influence the luck of those around them.

Are you saying that one person is more likely to roll a 4+ than another person?

sebster wrote:You really need to consider the possibility that it is elusive because it might not exist. There is also the possibility that it is elusive because that is the nature of it, once known it ceases to be and all that.
Both of those are much, much more likely than the odds that you'll be able to isolate and verify this magic thing you're talking about...
...
You're welcome to believe all of that if you want, but you shouldn't take it for granted that anyone does.

You do make good points, and I have thought of that, but I would rather go to the grave trying to find it for myself than blindly believe some one else who says it is not there. I am not referring to you personally Sebster, you are doing a well balanced job of both nay-saying and still being motivational at the same time. I am more referring to the people who died hundreds of years ago but are having their words taken as gospel today.

As for taking things for granted, I merely opened this thread for people to help out if they choose. If they believe in this or not, their input is still welcome. This is all still a theoretical debate at this time, after all, we would need advanced computerized machines to measure out any atom sized flux of energy, or "midichlorians" for another Star Wars use the Force reference.

It maybe that simple binary code reference I mentioned earlier. Your luck can be turned on one moment, and gone the next. Or even switched off when someone else's luck over powers yours momentarily. So if we gather enough info, we might be able to help pin down what to look for to keep your luck turned on.

One example of something lucky I do: I assign dice to a character. My Eldar Death Jester has three shots with his gun so I use the same three green dice for him and only him. Nothing else gets rolled with those dice except for things that involve the Death Jester directly. I keep a lot of dice needless to say, but I don't let other people use my dice and get their tainted mojo on them either. I have a separate group of dice that I consider "neutrally" charged, those I loan out to other players or use when ever I need more dice than what is assigned to a particular model. In this way, I try to consider the dice almost like a battery that I charge with positive energy directed towards an event that involves a particular figurine. The figurine itself is charged with positive energy while I put love and care into the painting and sculpting. This helps me to focus the energy directly to where and when I want it.

sebster wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:I would say that as a population, everything averages out. But I also believe that some people are going to be toward one end of the bell curve, while others are at the other end. So as a population, we average out.

Since I believe that lucky people are influenced by the need of an outcome, you wouldn't be able to easily test this in a lab.

Additionally, I believe that people may influence the luck of those around them.

Are you saying that one person is more likely to roll a 4+ than another person?

No, I'm saying that Jason is crazy lucky and rolled a "6's" like mad for his trukk saves (back when they saved on a "6").
Ronn on the other hand, will roll a fist full of 1's for his terminator saves, followed by box cars for the break tests.

Give them both dice, and tell them to roll 12,000 times, I'll bet each produces ~2,000 of each number.
But give them a setting where the outcome of those dice matter, and some people will have their results skewed one way, while others another.
This is luck my definition of luck.


Before you spout math at me, let me ask you, what are the assumption of truth in probability and statistics?


-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:Give them both dice, and tell them to roll 12,000 times, I'll bet each produces ~2,000 of each number.
But give them a setting where the outcome of those dice matter, and some people will have their results skewed one way, while others another.
This is luck my definition of luck.

Fair enough.

Before you spout math at me, let me ask you, what are the assumption of truth in probability and statistics?

My assumption begins and ends with the idea that human created meaning doesn't impact the spinning of small plastic cubes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Psyker_9er wrote:You do make good points, and I have thought of that, but I would rather go to the grave trying to find it for myself than blindly believe some one else who says it is not there. I am not referring to you personally Sebster, you are doing a well balanced job of both nay-saying and still being motivational at the same time. I am more referring to the people who died hundreds of years ago but are having their words taken as gospel today.

Fair enough. Good luck in your endeavours. If you aren't familiar with probability I'd advise you to read up, as a lot of things can look non-random when they are actually predicted by the dice rolling. If you're going to study patterns of rolling in any depth you'll need to know what probability would really expect to be able to spot non-probable results.

I would suggest that need does not affect the dice rolls but rather the perception of them.

Example, you roll twenty dice needing 4+
You roll 10x 3 and 10x 6.
That's a result with a significantly higher than average roll, however you don't perceive it as being particularly lucky because that increased average did not have an effect on the outcome that you desired.

Example, you roll three dice needing a 6
You roll 3x 5
That's perceived as a un-lucky result even though it was, again, well above average.

Ok, well... We have heard plenty from the side of Science. Don't go away you guys, we still may have a use for you yet.

Let us now hear some more from the Lucky side of things!

This is the place to post your lucky stories friends. I WANT to hear them, no matter how ridiculous you may think they sound. Consider this thread to be your safe haven away from the cold hard stare and scorn of science. Any game you play, and little things you do to feel lucky, post it here.

one thing: be bullish, just do it. if i play i aim to either win big or loos even bigger. no fun, if i play cards or even monopoly i am so stubborn as to set the odds really high. where is the fun in gaming when you play for keeps? so i just rush on and i pray for the green lady of luck to help me ...she seldom answers but well, when she helps out she gets mentioned and worshiped...

vik^^

Thank you Viktor, you have given me an idea to do a little recap of the info we have gathered thus far, and also to edit the first post to include said recap of info and further recaps of info.
(I'll try and keep the run on sentences down to a minimum.. )

So far, we now have a few categories of luck/luck users I think. Given the feed back I've written a brief summary in my own words of these categories. These are subject to change as we gather more input, we may also add new categories or new subcategories. Or if you think you fall into one of these categories but the definition is a little off, please let me know so we can work together, or even create a whole new category.

For a subcategory, I think we could have: Binary or Variable.
(A) Variable Luck:= Pick and choose. We create our own luck and, to a degree, we can control how lucky we get.
(B) Binary Luck:= On or off. We might or might not be lucky, we can not change it.

For the main category, I have come up with these scenarios:

1) Lucky Warrior:= Luck favors the bold... Guns blazing, bullets flying, let the dice land where they may... Usually Subcategory(B)
2) Lucky Magician:= Luck favors the ritual... Charms, chants, superstitions, gestures, dances, song, or projections of energy shall win the day... Usually Subcategory(A)
3) Lucky Divinity:= Luck favors the blessed... Prayer and meditation shall bestow the gift of luck upon thee... Usually Subcategory(A)
4) Lucky Logician:= Luck favors no one... With my understanding of probabilities, and through my actions, I might be able to stack odds in my favor... Usually Subcategory(B)
5) Luckless:= Luck does not exist... There are only the cold hard apathetic laws of science and math... Usually Subcategory(B) (just usually turned off though)

These are just examples, dont let them limit you... If you feel like a Lucky Warrior and you feel like you have more control over your luck than just "on or off" then great!

For the luck side. Buy a lot of dice. Roll at the die on a table. Take one die from each pack, that rolled a one, place them together and lite them on fire. Set an example out of the dice that don't know how to roll.

Then in a game never roll a die that has rolled greater than a 5. Once it rolls a 5 put it in the bag of dice to be taken home. Keep track of the bad dice. When all goes to hell light them on fire.

HawaiiMatt wrote:Bad dice need to be properly trained.
Line them all up on the cement.
Pull every 10th die out, and in front of the rest, smash it with a hammer.

That will teach them to fail back to back Ld10 tests (with re-rolls).

acreedon wrote:For the luck side. Buy a lot of dice. Roll at the die on a table. Take one die from each pack, that rolled a one, place them together and lite them on fire. Set an example out of the dice that don't know how to roll.

Then in a game never roll a die that has rolled greater than a 5. Once it rolls a 5 put it in the bag of dice to be taken home. Keep track of the bad dice. When all goes to hell light them on fire.

Thank you both! This just gave me an Idea for a new category!

6) Lucky Enforcer:= If Luck favors one thing, destroy the other things... I might not be able to control luck, but I can beat unluckiness into submission... Usually Subcategory(A)

I'm in no way superstitious, but, after tipping out some Dice onto the table, when I start making Die Rolls, I'll tend to pick up those which have rolled low, in the hope that they will roll high to 'balance out' the odds.

i think i stick to some ritals, never lend dices, there your own. defend them...or you might gather bad luck...

also i think i´m a bold lucky warrior, also i tend to use some facts i found out along the way on the basics of never change a running system. when something works stick to it. used often enough it starts to be a ritual...
also this is something out of the department of gaming pants and the likes. if you have a winning t-shirt use it!

...
vik

Popsicle wrote:I'm in no way superstitious, but, after tipping out some Dice onto the table, when I start making Die Rolls, I'll tend to pick up those which have rolled low, in the hope that they will roll high to 'balance out' the odds.

...Huh.

MinMax wrote:

Popsicle wrote:I'm in no way superstitious, but, after tipping out some Dice onto the table, when I start making Die Rolls, I'll tend to pick up those which have rolled low, in the hope that they will roll high to 'balance out' the odds.

...Huh.

He claims he's not superstitious, but then goes on to describe a meaningless ritual to try and improve his odds.

Possible explanations:
1) He doesn't know what the word superstitious means.
2) The words "in no" were a typo and shouldn't be there.
3) He added the caveat "I'm in no way superstitious" in the hopes that we wouldn't think he's a nutjob.
4) He doesn't understand how probability works and thinks dice will actually roll opposite results.
5) His psychic adviser told him that by posting this claiming it wasn't a superstition, he'll roll better.

Popsicle wrote:I'm in no way superstitious,

It would help if the rest of your post didn't immediately contradict this statement, as well as a thread you yourself started that thoroughly explains why probability doesn't work that way.

Popsicle wrote:I'm in no way superstitious, but, after tipping out some Dice onto the table, when I start making Die Rolls, I'll tend to pick up those which have rolled low, in the hope that they will roll high to 'balance out' the odds.

Thank you Popsicle, thank you for sharing with us... The rest of you guys chill out a bit and let the man speak...

So, given the categories of luck we are all working on to find, I would say that Popsicle here is category:

4) Lucky Logician:= Luck favors no one... With my understanding of probabilities, and through my actions, I might be able to stack odds in my favor... Subcategory(B)

Even though he knows the rules of probabilities, he still makes an effort to try and view the odds differently, so they can be perceived as being in his favor. It might work or it might not, hence the Subcategory(B) for Binary Luck; on or off...

Psyker_9er wrote:Ok, well... We have heard plenty from the side of Science. Don't go away you guys, we still may have a use for you yet.

Let us now hear some more from the Lucky side of things!

This is the place to post your lucky stories friends. I WANT to hear them, no matter how ridiculous you may think they sound. Consider this thread to be your safe haven away from the cold hard stare and scorn of science. Any game you play, and little things you do to feel lucky, post it here.

Once I was playing a game of Steve' Jackson's Battlesuit. Both sides were down to one guy, and my opponent did a major jump move which put his guy in an excellent position to shoot my guy the next turn.

As his guy was moving fast and stuff, there were a lot of negative To Hit modifiers, so my opponent said something like, "Got you now", and I said, "Unless I roll double one".

I rolled double one.

Well painted Minis get better dice rolls that unpainted minis.

Fact.

Source: Space Hulk 3rd Edition. A lone painted terminator 'punched' his way through 6 genestealers, whilst the rest of his almost painted squad died from horrific close combat injuries....

Luck is what you make of it. You can choose to put your faith in either luck or logic, both are simply a means to help explain the Universe, which we cannot fully commprehend.

I think luck could be an untestable 'attribute' but beyond that, there are levels of what could be considered 'lucky'. I could go and submit a resume to NASA of all my odd jobs and how I like science fiction and think "well I might just get lucky, there's always a chance" or I might just be told "dude, don't be such an idiot". Taking a chance when you can, and have a slight possibility of success (like rolling a 6 when you need it, for instance), while the consequences of not succeeding are minimal, is more like weighing probability. That's what good Blood Bowl players learned. You always make your easy moves first, your crucial but risky ones next, and your 'maybe just maybe' moves last (because your turn is over as soon as one guy messes up a roll). I have had games where I roll all hits and wounds and he improbably rolled all his saves. I got lucky on two separate sets of rolls, he only got lucky on one set of rolls, so he won out in the end and proceeded to roll crummy hit rolls with his all-important 10 lasgun volley who all missed. He argued that "see I roll just as many 1s as you do" yeah but 1's about what? That isn't probability so much as luck in my opinion. Toss in the exta factor of being consistently 'lucky' of your timing for something good to happen combined with the mathematical probability and you have another factor to consider. Making a chart to show how everyone rolls the same amount of 1s and 6s in the long run doesn't take into account the timing of when they happen and regarding what.
Other games have seen a hive tyrant hit by 6 melta shots and not get a single wound because of all of my 1's, followed by him slaughtering my whole Fire Dragon squad because of a failed 9 Ld check at -1. It's not just who rolls the best dice, but who rolls the best dice when it is really really important to an outcome. I would happily miss 10 hit rolls with my BS3 crap weapon wielding troops for just once to have a melta gun hit when I need it to. That can only be considered 'luck'. Picking what probably outcome to take a risk on compared to the importance of it and difficulty of it may make some people seem more lucky than others because they take the chance only if the result of beating the odds is very favorable, not taking a chance on a whim.

I guess what I think is that luck picks its targets, but the targets who seem 'lucky' pick where they need it most and take their chances only on highly profitable risks, not just any risk solely for the opportunity that it might just succeed when the payout isn't that big a deal. High risk investments and high stakes gambling come to mind; Either you take the risk you can afford to lose and say "meh.. go figure, it was a long shot", (or have nothing to lose), or you win big and say "haha I'm lucky!"

Thank you Guitardian, that sort of thing has been scratching at the back of my mind too, I just couldn't quite put it into words yet... Well said.

One of the main reasons I put this topic in "Dakka Discussions" is to include as many games, gamers, and gaming scenarios as possible. Because like what you said Guitardian, keeping track of each number we "'actually" roll with the dice is not nearly as important to this study as the "desired" results of that dice roll.

I'm still working on categories, got a few ideas for some new ones I'm working on. Perhaps, phase two of information gathering could be kind of like a battle report. Those who want to help out can pick a category they feel describes them, and then keep track of their dice rolls v.s. desired results. Then we can perhaps start to notice which category seems to be the "luckiest". That might be a bit much to ask people to post every time they roll some dice, but it would defiantly and greatly help this study...

Since we are still on the first phase, I shall go ahead and add one new category:

7)Indifferent:= Lucky favors? Ehh... This is a game of chance, mathematical probabilities and luck can't change anything, so just let me roll my dice... Usually Subcategory(B)

I am trying to get every type of personal view on luck included in at least one of these categories. But feel free to pick more than one for yourself if you would like. Just like Viktor von Domm says, he feels like both a Lucky Warrior and a bit of a Lucky Magician.

Mr Proudhoof wrote:Well painted Minis get better dice rolls that unpainted minis.

Fact.

Source: Space Hulk 3rd Edition. A lone painted terminator 'punched' his way through 6 genestealers, whilst the rest of his almost painted squad died from horrific close combat injuries....

Okay but observe the equally factual statement that any newly painted mini placed on the table will be dead by the end of turn 2.

sebster wrote:

Mr Proudhoof wrote:Well painted Minis get better dice rolls that unpainted minis.
Fact.
Source: Space Hulk 3rd Edition. A lone painted terminator 'punched' his way through 6 genestealers, whilst the rest of his almost painted squad died from horrific close combat injuries....

Okay but observe the equally factual statement that any newly painted mini placed on the table will be dead by the end of turn 2.

They either die by turn 2, or nothing comes in range of their fire so they spend the whole game just running in circles. Hmm it seems that irony also has it's fickle hand in our fate sometimes... With these two examples, plus the example Kilkrazy posted:

Kilkrazy wrote:"Got you now", and I said, "Unless I roll double one"... I rolled double one.

I think they might equal another category of how luck might work:

8) Lucky Irony:= Luck favors a good joke... What can go wrong, will go wrong, so I prepare for the worst and hope the joke is not on me... Usually Subcategory(B)

Hmmm... Seems a bit too generalized to me...So I will leave this one open to debate before I make it an official category... Not that, anything is actually official yet... We have grasped on to something here though, I can feel it, but I can't quite find the words for it...

I'm curious what kind of demographic we have so far... Lets do a quick roll call shall we!?!?
What category and subcategory of luck do you think you fit into? One of the 8 I have already proposed? Or is it one yet to be defined? I could guess all day based on the responses that have been posted, but it is up to you to decide...

If you haven't guessed by now... I consider myself to be a Lucky Magician with Subcategory(A) for variable... I haven't quite found the one ritual to end all rituals, but I'm trying

Phase 2- How To Play:= A Game of Luck
Three easy steps:

1)Choose
2)Challenge
3)Chart

*********
1)Choose:= Pick one category or pick a few, also include subcategory. If you don't currently like any of the 8 categories feel free to discuss changing one or adding more. I have collected opinions on "luck" from all over this website, please choose what you feel best describes you.

---Main Category:
Lucky Warrior:= Luck favors the bold... Guns blazing, bullets flying, let the dice land where they may...
Lucky Magician:= Luck favors the ritual... Charms, chants, superstitions, gestures, dances, song, or projections of energy shall win the day...
Lucky Divinity:= Luck favors the blessed... Prayer and meditation shall bestow the gift of luck upon thee...
Lucky Logician:= Luck favors no one... With my understanding of probabilities, and through my actions, I might be able to perceivably stack odds in my favor...
Lucky Enforcer:= If Luck favors one thing, destroy the other things... I might not be able to control luck, but I can beat unluckiness into submission...
Lucky Irony:= Luck favors a good joke... What can go wrong, will go wrong, so I prepare for the worst and hope the joke is not on me...
Lucky Chaos:= Luck favors the random... Gravitational pull from the stars or seismic activity from butterflies flapping their wings can change the outcome of a dice roll more than I can.
Luckless:= Luck does not exist... There are only the cold hard apathetic laws of science and math...
Indifferent:= Lucky favors? Ehh... This is a game of chance, mathematical probabilities and luck can't change anything, so just let me roll my dice...

---Subcategory:
Variable Luck:= (v)... We create our own luck and, to a degree, we can control how lucky we get.
Binary Luck:= (+)n... I consider myself to be lucky, but we can not change it. .
Binary Luck:= (-)ff... I do not consider myself lucky or otherwise, we can not change it.

2)Challenge:= Create a gaming scenario for others to roll "against" you. Any kind of scenario, any game, or any type of dice.

3)Chart:= BE HONEST! We all must be completely honest and trust in the honor system. Record what you rolled, post what you recorded. Also include in your post, any information that might be relevant to your chosen category of luck or the challenge you accepted.

Examples:
a) How many tries does it take for you to roll double six using 3d6?

b) My troops inflicted 2 wounds against your troops; pick a basic troop choice from your favorite 40k codex and roll 2d6 to save. Roll 5+ if you don't normally play 40k. Count how many times it takes for you to pass with both dice.

c) You are trying to pick the lock on a treasure chest, roll one d20, you succeed on a roll of 15 or above. You have one chance to get this right before a trap is sprung, so you can only roll once.

--------------------------------

Examples of Made up Imaginary Responses to the Examples from Above:
a) It took me 27 tries to roll double six with 3d6. I noticed that my blue dice never rolled higher than 3, I think it might have an imperfection so I'm not going to use that one any more. Luckless:= (-)

b) I picked Space Marines as my troop choice, they needed to roll 3+. I rolled 1 and 2 using a lucky rabbit foot... Then I tried again with out the rabbit foot and I rolled double six. Now I don't use that rabbit's foot any more. Lucky Magician:=(v)

c) Picked the lock on my first try, rolled a 17. I was feeling lucky so I didn't hesitate to roll. Lucky Warrior:= (+)

*************

Phase 2: Purpose is to both have fun and gather more data for the math heads to chew on. This type of study/game play gives people a chance to test their luck against other categories of luck or lucklessness. By creating game like scenarios, we can simulate the desire to succeed when rolling. This also gives an opportunity to freely practice as many lucky rituals, as you may want, with out a delay of game penalty. Most importantly, with this type of blind study it helps prevent cross contamination. When opponents are directly in front of each other, they can potentially project an aura of bad luck towards the opposing player or dice. With this style of competition we may never know who or when some one is rolling against us.

Lucky Magician
- Dice whispering, mentally focusing on the numbers

a) A single try to get two 6’s on 3d6. (6,6,3)
b) A single try to save two guardsmen (6,6)
c) Two tries to get 15+ on a d20 (10, 16)

Luco wrote:Lucky Magician
- Dice whispering, mentally focusing on the numbers

a) A single try to get two 6’s on 3d6. (6,6,3)
b) A single try to save two guardsmen (6,6)
c) Two tries to get 15+ on a d20 (10, 16)

Nicely done!

A single try to get (6,6,3) and then a single try again rolling double six. That is a pretty impressive dice whispering skill you have... Keep up the good work! You might want to have a little talk with your d20 though...

Psyker_9er wrote:

Luco wrote:Lucky Magician
- Dice whispering, mentally focusing on the numbers

a) A single try to get two 6’s on 3d6. (6,6,3)
b) A single try to save two guardsmen (6,6)
c) Two tries to get 15+ on a d20 (10, 16)

Nicely done!

A single try to get (6,6,3) and then a single try again rolling double six. That is a pretty impressive dice whispering skill you have... Keep up the good work! You might want to have a little talk with your d20 though...

Thanks.

Luco wrote:Lucky Magician
- Dice whispering, mentally focusing on the numbers

a) A single try to get two 6’s on 3d6. (6,6,3)
b) A single try to save two guardsmen (6,6)
c) Two tries to get 15+ on a d20 (10, 16)

To small of a testing pool to be accurate. Also, no control.

Klawz wrote:To small of a testing pool to be accurate. Also, no control.

The testing pool can be as large as every one who uses this website. It can also be as large as every combination of ritual or chant. It might be small now but we got room to grow.

As for a controlled condition, that is easy, we got plenty... All kinds of studies have already been made against luck, parallel experiments have been going on for years for us to compare with. People are welcome to pick the category of luckless or indifferent as well, and compare their results to those who consider themselves lucky. Perhaps instead, we can also think of this as more trial and error, or an innovative type study with no bases of comparison.

We still have plenty of time too... I wasn't going to stop with just Luco's results and call it a victory.
Whoo HOOOO! Luck wins 1 to nothing!
Just kidding... Although I must say those where some pretty darn good rolls to start the game with Luco.

It is still important to have a control (without muttering) for your expieriment, because what if it is your dice that are corrupt? Also, one roll for each isn't enough to rule out other variables. What if that was, well, "chance"?

I figure I might as well join the game too. Although, I must say, today I do NOT feel lucky at all. Here I am working on thanksgiving instead of consuming mass quantities of food with the family. So this Lucky Magician, is feeling like his luck has been turned (-)ff

I found some dice that are older than I am. They had been sitting in the back of my dresser since we moved in, and in a box for a few years before that. Old bland monochromatic dice from the original D&D adventure packs. I brought them to work and I'll be using these old dead die. It could take a moment for the dice to get warmed up after facing the chill of death for so long.

Psyker_9er wrote:Examples:
a) How many tries does it take for you to roll double six using 3d6?
b) My troops inflicted 2 wounds against your troops; pick a basic troop choice from your favorite 40k codex and roll 2d6 to save. Roll 5+ if you don't normally play 40k. Count how many times it takes for you to pass with both dice.
c) You are trying to pick the lock on a treasure chest, roll one d20, you succeed on a roll of 15 or above. You have one chance to get this right before a trap is sprung, so you can only roll once.

**********
I got these die that I think are dead.
Found them in the bone yard outback by the shed.
Older than me, you, and thee; I've heard it once said.

How does one awaken dead die from the dead?
The dead, use those numbers to put thoughts in your head.
Or the dead can use those die to tell lies instead.

Why, o' why, do I roll the die of the dead?

a) (#, blue, pip)= (4,2,4)(3,4,2)(2,6,2)(6,3,5)(6,3,1)(1,4,2)(1,6,2)(2,3,2)(6,1,4)(5,1,3)(6,3,6) 11th try
b) Genestealers need 5+(#,blue)=(3,6)(5,3)(1,6)(1,3)(4,4)(4,1)(5,3)(5,3)(3,1)(3,5)(2,2)shook extra, blew on dice (5,6) 12th try
c) Monochrome orange dead d20=Failed for the first try(4) then for curiosity I rolled again(20)
**********

Klawz wrote:It is still important to have a control (without muttering) for your experiment, because what if it is your dice that are corrupt? Also, one roll for each isn't enough to rule out other variables. What if that was, well, "chance"?

The challenges can be expanded upon, new ones can be made up, or the same ones can be taken over and over again. I just started with those three random examples. We still have to trust in the honor system that no one is purposefully using flawed dice. We can safely presume that every one of us potentially owns and uses at least one flawed dice. But that is part of the magic of luck too. That one flawed dice traveled the world while butterflies were flapping their wings and trees were falling in the forest, just to end up in our collection.

I've been personally keeping track of which one of my dice rolls what, looking for flaws. I am pretty leery of these since they did spend so much time in a hot attic box. If I do find a flawed one, that actually gives me something to add to this experiment. If I know a dice is more prone to roll certain numbers, I can practice different methods of trying to force it to roll something else. In that respect, we can think of this fiasco I've created as more than just a lab, but training grounds as well.

Also, we are trying to recreate an environment where luck can occur as a natural element: A casual gaming atmosphere. So we shouldn't be too strict with the rules, otherwise we could start to cut into the casual fun factor.

Psyker_9er wrote:Ok, well... We have heard plenty from the side of Science. Don't go away you guys, we still may have a use for you yet.

Consider this thread to be your safe haven away from the cold hard stare and scorn of science. Any game you play, and little things you do to feel lucky, post it here.

This thread is just stupid, so much so it actually annoys me to read it. It's probably because I seem to have read the same thread several times this week.

What's this hint of victimisation being peddled here, making out science is cold and hard and how you need to be sheltered from it? This in itself I could ignore, but posts are littered with pseudo-scientific language like "blind studies" when this isn't scientifically rigorous at all.
ie...

Most importantly, with this type of blind study it helps prevent cross contamination.

Just words, this isn't scientifically rigorous.

Scientifically speaking, the act of observation can change that which is being observed.

Been buffing up on quantum physics? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...and it's inappropriately applied here, the idea that someone feeling lucky or unlucky will affect their die roll is cobblers, as is whether their "opponent" is watching them will affect their luck. Jeeze.

I have noticed whom ever wears "The One Ring", even though it is not the actual ring of power, rolls considerably better than every one else and usually wins the game.

Bollocks, or more likely Confirmation Bias.

The random elements are more or less what we are trying to remove in a sense. If we discover this common energy/force/luck/magic and randomness will be almost entirely out of the picture. We wouldn't have to predict what the dice will roll exactly, we would simply be able change the energies surrounding those dice to better fit our needs.

Bollocks. This is like reading some pseudo-science book from the 70s, I had one once about pyramid power that claimed with enough meditation and concentration you could produce piles of money and sex slaves out of mid air.

Sometimes I have noticed a feeling of dread just before I roll, and usually I fail at rolling the dice afterward.

Confirmation bias in action.

Psyker_9er wrote: Nicely done!

A single try to get (6,6,3) and then a single try again rolling double six. That is a pretty impressive dice whispering skill you have... Keep up the good work! You might want to have a little talk with your d20 though...

A single result in your favour and you're congratulating them. So much for scientific rigour. If this even had the pretence of being a "blind" experiment shouldn't you wait until you get a sizable number of result before reporting them and seizing upon them to make some sort of conclusion? The fact that you are so quick and keen to leap upon them well need I say again....Confirmation Bias.

Psyker_9er wrote:I think the reason luck has been deemed a fallacy, is because no one had access to such a huge database of info like Dakka Dakka. Until now.

Rubbish, do you think no one has ever done serious work into probabilities and even psychic powers? The reason they fell out of serious consideration was that they never turned up results.

And all the other talk about 'happy halos', 'magic auras' etc. If we are going to have a "theoretic debate" what's the fething point in not basing it in any form of logic or science? I wish you'd pack in claiming to do science or being logical, if you want to believe in magic at least drop the pseudo-bollocks. No one is lucky all the time. In any set of repeated random events, like die rolling, you get the odd string of unusual results. Over the long term these are not significant, if they are significant it's because the die has a bias. The person experiencing the cluster of unusual results draws attention because it's out of the ordinary, if they are rolling lots of ones they are called unlucky, if they are getting sixes they are lucky/ Humans are very good at spotting patterns that are not really there. There's no all powerful mystical energy field that people can tap into to control the die rolls they throw, or some cosmological constant that requires that once you throw a one you should have a greater chance of throwing a six to even it out. 'Luck' is only an attribute one has in games like D&D, they are fantasy. Lets not forget the person starting this thread has such a poor grasp of probability that, contrary to his claims are arguments he's had with people in his LGS, we've already been through a thread this week trying to explain why rolling a one does not in fact make is easier to roll a six next time.

Why do we need about three threads on this matter?

I'll give you a treat. Because I almost never...ever...do this. But this thread is deserving of a true illustration of my feelings and frustration at trying to cope with the so much text can fly in the face of maths, probability, science, logic and common sense.

You are entitled to your opinions Howard A Treesong, and you are entitled to go read something else too. Sure, there have been many topics like this springing up lately. There is a difference though. Where most of the other topics closed down, buried beneath demands for scientific studies and name calling, I am still trying.

There have been demands for proof, so I am conducting an experiment.

There has been slander, accusations, and an over all rudeness much like the tone of your latest post Howard A Treesong. So yes, I have tried to make this "a safe haven away from the cold hard stare and scorn of science."

If this is not scientifically rigorous enough for you, you have three options: (1) Go do your own experiment, (2) provide constructive criticism, or (3) Shut up...

As for me, I'm going to roll some dice, tell some stories, compare notes, and discuss results amongst friends. You are still welcome to pick a category and roll some dice too. Every one is welcome here, even science-minded people. The only people not welcome are those who would rather be a jerk than have some fun.

Howard A Treesong wrote:A single result in your favour and you're congratulating them. So much for scientific rigour. If this even had the pretence of being a "blind" experiment shouldn't you wait until you get a sizable number of result before reporting them and seizing upon them to make some sort of conclusion? The fact that you are so quick and keen to leap upon them well need I say again....Confirmation Bias.

I was more commenting on Luco's bravery for joining in the experiment. It takes a lot of guts to get up here in front of people and claim to be lucky. The game didn't suddenly end right then and there when I congratulated him on dice well rolled, did it? No. Honestly, and please believe me when I say this because it is the truth, I would have congratulated any one who went first regardless of what they actually rolled or what category of luck they have chosen. I would congratulate anyone who rolled as awesome as Luco did, live game, online study, or not. It is part of the casual gaming atmosphere I'm trying to create here.


Luck is not logical, so being scientifically rigorous wont do us much good on this topic. Instead of fighting fire with fire, you might say we are fighting crazy with crazy.

GAME ON!!!!

Klawz wrote:

Luco wrote:Lucky Magician
- Dice whispering, mentally focusing on the numbers

a) A single try to get two 6’s on 3d6. (6,6,3)
b) A single try to save two guardsmen (6,6)
c) Two tries to get 15+ on a d20 (10, 16)

To small of a testing pool to be accurate. Also, no control.

I just did what was asked, it'll get bigger as more people participate.

Psyker_9er wrote:
There have been demands for proof, so I am conducting an experiment.

The way your experiment is setup can not prove anything.
Of course, you will reject any setups with a chance of proving you wrong, because you specifically reject the very notions of statistic and probability.

Things similar to your waste-of-time ('cause it's not an experiment) were tried before, using rigorous methodologies, and were found not working.
Scientists are right, and you are wrong. Deal with it.

Psyker_9er wrote:You are entitled to your opinions Howard A Treesong, and you are entitled to go read something else too. Sure, there have been many topics like this springing up lately. There is a difference though. Where most of the other topics closed down, buried beneath demands for scientific studies and name calling, I am still trying.

There have been demands for proof, so I am conducting an experiment.

There has been slander, accusations, and an over all rudeness much like the tone of your latest post Howard A Treesong. So yes, I have tried to make this "a safe haven away from the cold hard stare and scorn of science."

If this is not scientifically rigorous enough for you, you have three options: (1) Go do your own experiment, (2) provide constructive criticism, or (3) Shut up...

As for me, I'm going to roll some dice, tell some stories, compare notes, and discuss results amongst friends. You are still welcome to pick a category and roll some dice too. Every one is welcome here, even science-minded people. The only people not welcome are those who would rather be a jerk than have some fun.

Seeing as you effectively told me to go away or shut up I don't think you have to look far to find that rudeness of which you speak. You want to do an experiment, fine. Why then ignore scientific input? Why shun the stare of science? Your approach is confused are you trying to prove something with experimentation or have fun and tell anecdotes? Because one does not add up to the other.

Your 'experiment' is hopeless. I have actually thought about this, there's a million different ways to approach it but I've slimmed it down to something basic that addresses a few ideas raised. If you could find 30-40 people willing to participate it might be worthwhile, to prove a point.

It may be hard to separate, but keep in mind that reason is only one way of looking at life in general. To expand the point, it isn't necessary to be reasonable to life happily or get through your own journey. Science and reason are not the end all be all regardless of the general acceptance of it as such, merely one way of knowing.

Let's calm down alright? Take a minute and chill before continuing on before it gets nasty.

If it helps I'd be willing to repeat the scenario as many times as need be or a variety of scenarios and see how it turns out.

Luco is right, a good chill pill is in order for all of us.

I do want scientific input, I really do...but not when that input comes with facepalms and insults.
No one wants that kind of input.

This website is what we have to work with. Working together with scientific input and crazyish input with a simulated casual gaming atmosphere we might be able to discover something here. It might not be the holy grail end all discovery that leads to dodging bullets and bending spoons like the Matrix movies... But something... I'm still willing to work with this, and you too are welcome to help out Treesong.

I'm curious, what kind of study did you have in mind Treesong? I would be willing to help out with yours if I'm able.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrondeau wrote:

Psyker_9er wrote:
There have been demands for proof, so I am conducting an experiment.

The way your experiment is setup can not prove anything.
Of course, you will reject any setups with a chance of proving you wrong, because you specifically reject the very notions of statistic and probability.

Things similar to your waste-of-time ('cause it's not an experiment) were tried before, using rigorous methodologies, and were found not working.
Scientists are right, and you are wrong. Deal with it.

I am not just going to stop because some tells me to quit. I'm not going to give up because other people tell me to deal with it. I am not going to give up because others have tried and failed. If I am wrong though, then I will find out for myself in my own way. Having said that, what constructive criticism do you have that could possibly be more helpful than just telling me to give up and stop wasting time?

Psyker_9er wrote:I'm curious, what kind of study did you have in mind Treesong? I would be willing to help out with yours if I'm able.

Broadly speaking I would have two groups of people and split the people into each of these groups into pairs. I would then ask them each day to roll some dice against their opponent, say four dice several times, who ever gets the highest wins. They do this each day for five or ten days. In one group I would not tell them if they were winning or not, they would only find out at the end of the week/fortnight, in the other group I would tell each player at the end of each day if they had won or not.

Overall this would hopefully test if anyone scored an unusual number of wins and high die rolls, we could cross-reference that by asking them before hand if they considered themselves a lucky person to see if their perception of their luck made any difference. Also by examining the two groups we'd be testing if knowing the outcome, whether you were winning or losing, or being kept ignorant, made any difference to the die rolls and the number of wins

And of course there has to be an incentive. The person who wins the most games, if there's a tie the highest overall total from all their die rolls, gets a prize of some sort. That means that there is a desire to win. Of course people would have to be totally honest and preferably do things like all use GW dice, that's the best I can come up with on an internet forum.

That is a pretty good idea, instead of using GW dice though I might suggest using casino dice. There is an article right here on dakkadakka that studies the different types of dice.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/That%27s_How_I_Roll_-_A_Scientific_Analysis_of_Dice

Your concept and my "experiment" are actually not that different. You have 2 test groups, I have 8. The 8 categories I came up with I obtained through reading responses on my thread and posts from other topics like this one. If three or more different people said the same sort of concept about how luck works, I made it into a category. The reason for the 8 different types of categories is because no one knows how luck actually works yet. Hopefully I can get enough participants for each concept of luck to compete against each other representing their chosen categories. Instead of 5-10 days I was planning on dragging this out for a few months and post the winning category at the end of each cycle.

There are a lot of variables in my "experiment" because, as I mentioned before, no one knows how luck works yet. So I didn't want to accidently exclude the one thing that might actually make a difference. I wanted the people who consider themselves lucky to actually feel lucky too, so I didn't want to put too many restraints. Yes, I do think people can be adversely effected by their opponents or by too much scrutiny.

Also, much to my dismay, I do not have a super cool underground super villain lair in my back yard. So I wont be able to conduct the proper experiments with super cool high tech gadgets. Unfortunately all we have to work with is this forum.

Let me get this straight.

You want to run an actual scientific experiment to prove that performing a meaningless ritual changes the outcome of a random event.

I suggest you perform the following steps:
1) Stop posting on an internet message board
2) Do some research about how experiments are actually performed
3) Take some statistics classes and learn how probability can be calculated, both expected results and the frequency of outliers
4) Talk to some scientists about doing some research on this
5) Try not to get too upset when they laugh in your face

If you don't want to participate, then don't.

If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read it.

If you think it is meaningless, then don't get upset when I continue on.

This has potential to be fun and we might discover something. Since this website is based on wargames and having fun, I don't see why we can't tell anecdotes and do something that resembles an experiment at the same time.

Would you feel better if I called it an "experimental game" instead of just an "experiment"?

If you are too afraid to roll dice against people like me then just say so

This is, after all, a challenge to a game of Luck... If you feel like there is no such thing then I don't see what you have to be afraid of (jokes... see... I'm telling anecdotes)

so...uh anyone else have any results to submit?

trial 2
first try for double 6 (6,6,1)
Tau saves 3rd try (6,4)
D20... six tries this time around. Tried focusing more and less talking and ended up with 3 straight 15+'s. (18, 16, 15)

A good deal worse this go around eh? Dice weren't blessed today as they had been last time though.

Anyone else wanna have fun and give it a go?

Here are some real life scenarios, interesting videos, and reading material loosely related to 3 of the categories of luck I have written out. Take from them whatever you want...

Lucky Warrior:= http://wethearmed.com/index.php?topic=7867.0;wap2 (a true story)

Lucky Magician:= http://theosophywatch.com/2010/09/08/the-body-field/ (a good read and great videos)

Lucky Divinity:= http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-07/st_gadgetshrine (an interesting read)

Psyker_9er wrote:If you are too afraid to roll dice against people like me then just say so

Sigh. It's not about being "afraid" of "people like you", its that your approach isn't organised or productive and you can't take any constructive criticism or other suggestions.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Psyker_9er wrote:If you are too afraid to roll dice against people like me then just say so

Sigh. It's not about being "afraid" of "people like you", its that your approach isn't organised or productive and you can't take any constructive criticism or other suggestions.

He made an Appeal to Bravery logical fallacy.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Sigh. It's not about being "afraid" of "people like you", its that your approach isn't organised or productive and you can't take any constructive criticism or other suggestions.

I really was just trying to be funny by the way.

However, I have been asking for constructive criticism, but hardly any one is giving any out. Most of what I get are snood comments about how "Bollocks" my ideas are, how I should stop trying, how I should leave it up to the "real scientists", or how science is right and I am wrong so deal with it. Nothing constructive about that at all...

Plus, not only am I fighting with people online, but the collective unconscious at this point in human history says the topic I am trying to discuss is taboo. Science says it is taboo, therefore it must be false and any one trying to think otherwise is obviously an idiot... That is what I am up against.

Treesong, you suggested a different experiment, but that is your idea. I said I would help you if I could, and I meat it. But because there are well over 6 billion people in the world I think a test group of 20-40 people is a bit small. What I've proposed may seem unorganized, but everything we discuss or post on here is well documented. We are still trying to gather info at this stage of the game. If you think what I am doing is not productive, that is because no one besides Luco and me have actually started to roll dice. Instead I am still getting the same comments that say if it isn't scientific it is not right and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously.

Phase 1 of the game was to get everyone on the same page of understanding what it is I am trying to do here, but we can back it up. Would you like a hypothesis then? A run down of what I am trying to do? Would that make it feel more scientific'y and organized?

Hypothesis:=
As was stated in my original post: "Since all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration; "luck" could be considered as one projecting their own energies to try and sway a particular event or object towards desired results."

Resources that support, or are similar to, the idea of untapped energies within us:
http://www.naturalworldhealing.com/nordenstrom-electrical.htm
http://learn-telekinesis-training.com/
http://www.ial.org
http://www.gerardsenehi.com/home.html
(picked four random websites, there are many others)

Through a series of experimental games we can test to see if we can: learn to actually manipulate these energies, have these energies bestowed upon us, or if it is merely an unexpected thing that can not be controlled. Different people have different views on luck, I've provided 8 generalized descriptions of these different categories of views. To be fair I have included the category that luck does not exist and the category of indifference. Contestants will roll dice against each other and the results will be recorded for later research.

Psyker_9er wrote:Treesong, you suggested a different experiment, but that is your idea. I said I would help you if I could, and I meat it. But because there are well over 6 billion people in the world I think a test group of 20-40 people is a bit small.

I think it would be enough if they all made lots of die rolls, I was considering the fact that you need to get people on board. The more the better, but I thought that 40 might be possible to get together on the forum, and comparing two groups of 20 people rolling dice many times would be statistically viable.

Resources that support, or are similar to, the idea of untapped energies within us:
http://www.naturalworldhealing.com/nordenstrom-electrical.htm
http://learn-telekinesis-training.com/
http://www.ial.org
http://www.gerardsenehi.com/home.html

Oh come one, these aren't authoritative sources for anything, they don't support anything. Anyone can write a webpage, all this "untapped energies" stuff just sounds like crystal healing and the like. The first one I looked at was a close up of a person turning a page in a book. Shame it wasn't a long shot so we could see what else was going on.

Simply, someone off camera was blowing the page. You don't have to be a genius to work that one out. People have even done this in front of people and claimed to be psychic. This simplest more obvious tricks are often the best as you can see here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc&feature=player_embedded

Contestants will roll dice against each other and the results will be recorded for later research.

Therein lies the problem. You have no structure, you have too many categories and will likely only have one or two people for each. The data will be anecdotal at best. The first study of any kind should be tightly focused to prove any sort of principle before expanding to collection on many variable groups. You need an experimental design to stick to, not just a woolly approach to getting people to roll dice and then trying to fit the research onto it as an afterthought. To be worth something you need to construct it in a way that allows for some statistical analysis for the "math heads to chew on".

You confuse hypothesis with wild speculation. The test for the experiment should be that a group of people considering themselves "lucky" score differently to those that don't believe in luck, or that there's a difference in die rolls if you tell a person if they are winning each time or keeping them ignorant until the end. IF you prove a difference then you could speculate on a cause. But you have got way ahead of yourself by declaring an unfounded belief in projecting untapped energies that comes from vibration of matter before even proving a difference. Aside from being total pseudo-science you're front loading the experiment's conclusion, if you do discover a difference between people then you would leap on the idea that it's proof of "untapped energies". It isn't, it's proof of a difference, the causes could be manifold.

Hey this is like a recreation of that scene from "2001: a Space Odessy"...

Da... Da... Da... DA DA

Thank you Treesong, that was actually very constructive.

Those 4 websites I posted where kind of chosen at random, and I agree the videos of telekinesis could easily be discredited since we ourselves where not there to witness. But two of those links are actually medical doctors with a list of credentials as long as my arm.

Quotes from the the first medical website: http://www.naturalworldhealing.com/nordenstrom-electrical.htm
"Why I am so impressed with Dr. Nordenström's work: I met Dr. Nordenström in 1987 when he was touring the United States telling doctors about his work. He had discovered there is a difference in the charge of the blood in the arteries compared to blood in the veins. This means that there is a flow of charge between arteries and veins. In physics, when there is a flow of ions along a wire there is also an electromagnetic field generated around the wire. Thus, Dr. Nordenström has established that the human body has an immense network of blood vessel "cables" that are surrounded by electromagnetic fields. It is these fields that I propose hold in place the Hyaluronic Acid molecules that create functional "tubules" (protected zones) inside of which flow ions. This is the flow of ions that is known as "Chi" or "Qi". It only happens when a person is alive, when they die the blood stops flowing, the electromagnetic field disappears, the hyaluronic acid tubules relax and disappear, and no anatomy dissection will ever find an acumeridian tubule in a dead person. (There have been studies where radioactive dye was injected into an acupuncture point and the dye moved up the leg along the traditional line described in acupuncture literature and not along any known blood or lymph vessel.)"

Quotes from second medical website: http://www.ial.org
"In 1976, Dr. West made a Major Life-Saving Discovery which revealed that the sodium-potassium pump that is in every cell, in every organ and in every part of your body - actually generates electricity."


The tests have already been done to determine that there are energies within us. And they where done by actual factual for real doctors. So the speculation that the energies are there is not so wild, just the part where I claim we can manipulate those energies. That is the part considered taboo by the vast majority of people.

Psyker_9er wrote:The tests have already been done to determine that there are energies within us. And they where done by actual factual for real doctors.

Neither of those are medical websites, and I'm still waiting to see evidence of 'actual factual for real doctors.' You REALLY need to check the settings on your bs detector, because it does not seem to be working at all.

Bookwrack wrote:

Psyker_9er wrote:The tests have already been done to determine that there are energies within us. And they where done by actual factual for real doctors.

Neither of those are medical websites, and I'm still waiting to see evidence of 'actual factual for real doctors.' You REALLY need to check the settings on your bs detector, because it does not seem to be working at all.

Another quote from the first website:
"If you study the career of Dr. Nordenström you will see that after he lectured in the U.S.A. about his research with cancer, he was ignored by the American cancer industry. He announced his discovery of the charge difference in cancer tumors and told doctors and researchers in the U.S. how he was able to make tumors disappear when he hooked up an electrical current and reversed the charge in the tumor. Eventually he went to China and they immediately understood the value of his discovery and began applying it to treating cancer patients."

Studies done by Dr. Björn Nordenström, M.D. delve into the energies within us... Look him up.

The other website is a nonprofit medical organization based on the works of Dr. C. Samuel West... Look him up too...

Of course, it actually helps if you actually read the information before passing judgement.

Scott-S6 wrote:I would suggest that need does not affect the dice rolls but rather the perception of them.

Example, you roll twenty dice needing 4+
You roll 10x 3 and 10x 6.
That's a result with a significantly higher than average roll, however you don't perceive it as being particularly lucky because that increased average did not have an effect on the outcome that you desired.

Example, you roll three dice needing a 6
You roll 3x 5
That's perceived as a un-lucky result even though it was, again, well above average.

What you're demonstrating is a human's perception in one case accurately understanding the probabilities and in the second case, not understanding the probabilities. The reason for this is that you have an underlying assumption that numerically higher values are more valuable, when in actuality the value is arbitrary.

In the first case, you have made an average roll, because each roll had a 50% success chance, and out of 20 dice, 50% passed the roll. This is the most logical outcome to expect. The actually numerical value of the dice doesn't matter, because the outcome is binary. Thus, rolling half the dice as 1, 2, or 3 and the other half as 6 doesn't mean you rolled above average. It would be above average if the outcome were determined by, for example, the average numerical value rolled. But it isn't.

In the second case, because of the binary nature of outcome (only succeeding on a 6), you have again rolled average. This is because the statistical average is 0.42 or 42% chance of rolling a six. If you look at a sum of successes, (any six has a value of success, so two sixes is two successes) then the average becomes 0.5. So again, you haven't rolled above average.

Understanding probabilities is very difficult. I've certainly gotten it wrong before.

It's like the puzzle they showed in the movie "21". You're a contestant in a game show. There are three doors, one of which has a car, and two of which have nothing. You pick a door and round 1 ends. Then the gameshow host, knowing which door the car is behind, opens one of the doors the car isn't behind and offers you the chance to change your guess. Do you?

On the surface, you would expect to have a 50/50 chance of winning at this point. But that's not actually the case. The door your originally picked only has a 1/3 chance of winning. This is because by picking the second door, you're effectively getting to choose two doors. Another way to think about it is imagine if it was a million doors. You pick one, with a 1 in a million chance of winning. Then the gameshow host opens all but one door, revealing no car behind those doors. Do you change in this case? Yes, because your original guess only has a one in a million chance of winning, meaning the last door represents a 999,999 out of a million chance of winning.

In the short run, there is luck due to statistical deviation. In the long run, there is no luck. If you think you're lucky or unlucky, you just haven't had enough of a sample size to hit the statistical mean.

Psyker_9er wrote:Of course, it actually helps if you actually read the information before passing judgement.

The sad thing is, I was going to say the EXACT same thing to you, except I figured it'd come off as too snarky. However, if you're going to quote anything, especially trying to prove someone has legitimate credentials for anything, it helps if you actually read what else is on the exact same page you quote from so that stuff like this doesn't bite you in the ass.

Dr. C. Samuel West announced:

Every healing art on earth involves getting oxygen to cells! This site teaches the Medical Research that reveals:
The cause of pain, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and every other degenerative disease on Earth
How it is now possible for you to relieve pain and suffering at home faster and easier than you've ever dreamed possible
How to keep your body free from pain and disease as long as you live.The speed-healing process is now revealed...

A baby blind and brain damaged - doctors said for life - healed in five days!
Man given up to die with five by-pass valves - healed in 2 months!
Broken fingers - set in five hours and healed within eight!

THAT is who you're quoting as an authority on 'The tests have already been done?' It's fake science, made up by phonies who invented a medical group so that the rubes would think it had some sort of legitimacy. (mission accomplished, although if you'd bothered to read the site, you might not have fallen for it).

The awarding of Certification as a Lymphologist by the Academy is not intended to convey any licenses, or any special legal qualifications to diagnose, prescribe or even to treat any type of patients.

These are qualified by the Academy to teach the Pure Laws & Principles of Health,
and to speak on the subject of Lymphology, 'The Art of Lymphacising',
various Self-Help Pain Relief Techniques, and
the process by which the body heals itself according to intelligent design.

Bookwrack wrote:

Psyker_9er wrote:Of course, it actually helps if you actually read the information before passing judgement.

The sad thing is, I was going to say the EXACT same thing to you, except I figured it'd come off as too snarky. However, if you're going to quote anything, especially trying to prove someone has legitimate credentials for anything, it helps if you actually read what else is on the exact same page you quote from so that stuff like this doesn't bite you in the ass.

Dr. C. Samuel West announced:

Every healing art on earth involves getting oxygen to cells! This site teaches the Medical Research that reveals:
The cause of pain, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and every other degenerative disease on Earth
How it is now possible for you to relieve pain and suffering at home faster and easier than you've ever dreamed possible
How to keep your body free from pain and disease as long as you live.The speed-healing process is now revealed...

A baby blind and brain damaged - doctors said for life - healed in five days!
Man given up to die with five by-pass valves - healed in 2 months!
Broken fingers - set in five hours and healed within eight!

THAT is who you're quoting as an authority on 'The tests have already been done?' It's fake science, made up by phonies who invented a medical group so that the rubes would think it had some sort of legitimacy. (mission accomplished, although if you'd bothered to read the site, you might not have fallen for it).

The awarding of Certification as a Lymphologist by the Academy is not intended to convey any licenses, or any special legal qualifications to diagnose, prescribe or even to treat any type of patients.

These are qualified by the Academy to teach the Pure Laws & Principles of Health,
and to speak on the subject of Lymphology, 'The Art of Lymphacising',
various Self-Help Pain Relief Techniques, and
the process by which the body heals itself according to intelligent design.

The ial.org website is only based on the studies done by Dr. C. Samuel West. The website itself is not his work. You can Google Dr. C. Samuel West and find more information about him and his studies about the energies within us. The legal license clause you quoted at the end has to be there simply because, as mentioned before, this type of medical research is considered to be taboo.

Did you look up Dr. Björn Nordenström? Google him too. The 4 websites I posted, as mentioned before, where chosen at random, there are many many many other websites.

Psyker_9er wrote:
The dice part of the equation predicts the end result towards a probable product based on constant odds. (may not always produce the product we want but the odds do not change)
And what we do as the variable, based on random willy nilly sillyness, also changes the product as well. (may not always produce the product we want but it sure is fun to dance a jig)

The point of this experiment is to try and find common "luck", or what ever you want to call it. Once we find it, the gaming industry will never be the same

You haven't actually eliminated the effect of probability, you've simply added a set of variables that are controlled for by the assumption of an unbiased roller.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Oh come one, these aren't authoritative sources for anything, they don't support anything.

More to the point, simply stating that something is "authoritative" is basically meaningless. You're an authority if someone else calls you one, that's basically the only criteria. And while that may inspire someone to read your work, it isn't pertinent to whether or not the person in question is making a useful, or accurate, argument.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Anyone can write a webpage, all this "untapped energies" stuff just sounds like crystal healing and the like.

Well, I think the biggest issue is that the majority of people who believe in these sorts of things have a seeming aversion to making logically coherent arguments.

The OP, as an example, has previously argued that those who think logically cannot understand luck, which is interesting given that he's basically trying to develop a logically consistent method to isolate a causal sort of variation for luck; using what was essentially a variant of a standard methodological test from the 60's, when this sort of thing was in vogue.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
You confuse hypothesis with wild speculation.

This is a common mistake. Hypotheses are very specific, testable claims. For example, in this case, a valid hypothesis would be "Thinking of kittens while rolling dice produces successful dice rolls at a greater than expected rate." That's still a claim of dubious testability, given our inability to verify the kitten thought directly, but its better than nothing.

DOGMA!! I was wondering when you would show up... It is about time too. I do love masterful debaters (joke)

dogma wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Oh come one, these aren't authoritative sources for anything, they don't support anything.

More to the point, simply stating that something is "authoritative" is basically meaningless. You're an authority if someone else calls you one, that's basically the only criteria. And while that may inspire someone to read your work, it isn't pertinent to whether or not the person in question is making a useful, or accurate, argument.

So basically, even though the random websites where poor choices to represent their work, Dr. C. Samuel West and Dr. Björn Nordenström are authorities on the energies within us... 'Cause I said so

I bet if those two doctors knew what I was doing to their "good name", they would be rolling in their graves. At least for the purpose of my theory though, they are authorities on the fact that there is an electrical current and electromagnetic fields running through all of us. I just take it a wilder step forward saying we can manipulate those energies through will alone.

However, that is really only 'my' theory. There are the other categories of 'luck' to choose from, and many variations for each.

dogma wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Anyone can write a webpage, all this "untapped energies" stuff just sounds like crystal healing and the like.

Well, I think the biggest issue is that the majority of people who believe in these sorts of things have a seeming aversion to making logically coherent arguments.

The OP, as an example, has previously argued that those who think logically cannot understand luck, which is interesting given that he's basically trying to develop a logically consistent method to isolate a causal sort of variation for luck; using what was essentially a variant of a standard methodological test from the 60's, when this sort of thing was in vogue.

Well, yes and no. I do think that logical minded people are prone to be unable to recognize it when they see it because it is so illogical. And really what I am trying to do is help bridge the gap between both sides of the looking glass. Which is why my methods are still seemingly unorganized, not scientific enough, unorthodox, or simply willy nilly silly.

Btw, what is with you and like the 60's dude man? Like where you there totally surfing those acid waves or what man? You don't have to answer that 2nd question But seriously, free thinking has been around for many generations. Heck, on the flip side, not too long ago I would have been burned at the stake already.

dogma wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:You confuse hypothesis with wild speculation.

This is a common mistake. Hypotheses are very specific, testable claims. For example, in this case, a valid hypothesis would be "Thinking of kittens while rolling dice produces successful dice rolls at a greater than expected rate." That's still a claim of dubious testability, given our inability to verify the kitten thought directly, but its better than nothing.

I can tie myself to my hypothesis, but I didn't want to tie any one else down from the other categories, so I left it more open ended before:
Trying to manipulate the energies in my body, once mastered, can produce successful dice rolls greater than expected rates... Is that better? it might be the kitten...

So, umm... is any one else going to roll dice yet? I'm open for more constructive criticism if not.

Psyker_9er wrote:So basically, even though the random websites where poor choices to represent their work, Dr. C. Samuel West and Dr. Björn Nordenström are authorities on the energies within us... 'Cause I said so

You did call them authoritative. If that wasn't what you meant, then you should have chosen a different word.

Psyker_9er wrote:
At least for the purpose of my theory though, they are authorities on the fact that there is an electrical current and electromagnetic fields running through all of us. I just take it a wilder step forward saying we can manipulate those energies through will alone.

Well, they're not the authorities on that fact. The reason that their research was dismissed is that we have known, for a long time, that our bodies use electrical current to function.

As far as conscious manipulation, there have been at least a few physics studies that demonstrated an apparent correlation between human desire and physical movement of particles.

Psyker_9er wrote:
Btw, what is with you and like the 60's dude man? Like where you there totally surfing those acid waves or what man? You don't have to answer that 2nd question But seriously, free thinking has been around for many generations. Heck, on the flip side, not too long ago I would have been burned at the stake already.

My issue is that you interpret "free thinking" as though it came right out of the Beat Generation play book.

There are very few things new under the sun, and they aren't exclusive with respect to logic, philosophy, or anything else. In essence, if you came to it, then it was free, and if you didn't then it still might have been free. Free will being the odd nebulous thing that it is, there's no way to know.

To put it another way: your understanding of "free thought" reminds me of grading freshman philosophical papers.

Psyker_9er wrote:
I can tie myself to my hypothesis, but I didn't want to tie any one else down from the other categories, so I left it more open ended before:
Trying to manipulate the energies in my body, once mastered, can produce successful dice rolls greater than expected rates... Is that better? it might be the kitten...

So, umm... is any one else going to roll dice yet? I'm open for more constructive criticism if not.

That's not better. You need to specifically state what you're testing (kittens once, maybe God next) otherwise we don't really knowwhat you're doing; "manipulation" is too vague.

Hypothesis:=

We can have fun rolling dice against each other in a relaxed and casual online gaming atmosphere.

It strikes me that the only way to establish this would be to determine if people rolling high is in any way predictive of their future rolls.

That is, you'd observe the rolls of 50 people in games, each playing a dozen games, and track their total rolls, and their rolls on the most crucial rolls, which you'd define before hand as heavy weapon shots and leadership rolls, or something. Then you'd note who's luck was above average and who's was below.

Then you'd track those same 50 people over their next dozen games, and see if the people who recorded lucky results in their first dozen games were the same people who recorded lucky results in their next dozen.

Feeling extra philosophical today, just like I use to during my freshman year in philosophy class. So I am just going to give a little extra food for thought to help feed the flames of curiosity. It is this curiosity that I will be talking about, more to the point, what is it about us as a species that makes us so empty? What caused the void to be in all of us that craves 'more'? Like me for example, what caused me to be so curious to want more of the fantastical and more than just what can be seen under the microscope?

Curiosity can come simply from a lack of knowledge or understanding. However, more often than not, it doesn't just stop once we have answers. We either find something else to be curious about, or we keep digging even though things have been spelled out in black and white in front of us. Sometimes, the answers we find only bring about more questions. We form groups, societies, cultures, religions, or sciences to help ease the burden of curiosity... Yet we still crave more.

Some religions would claim that this curious void was part of our grand design. The creator (or creators) simply created the hollowness inside us with the hopes that we would inevitably find the path leading to their godly embrace. Others may claim it is merely a product of our level of consciousness, that it is our nature to question and to crave. Since animals are not at our level of "intelligence" then they are perfectly fine living day to day on instinct. That is not actually an answer how it got there though, and really only poses more questions... Not only does this curiosity cause us to seek answers, but also to consume and destroy in our quest to find those answers. There have been cultures through out history able to live like "animals" as nature intended, taking only what is needed and using what nature provides. Those cultures now, are all but eradicated by the still consuming and destructive force of other's curiosity and desire for more.

The desire for 'more' can accompany curiosity quite easily. The emptiest form of curiosity: how much better can my life be with more of this, or more of that? That kind of curious desire never gets filled. One might say the raping and pillaging we do of the land is actually taking what is needed, since there are well over 6 billion people in the world today. But do we really need 12 guns for every 1 person? Do we really need 5 copies of the latest blockbuster movie in 6 different languages for each and every 1 of us? We already have every flavor of bubble gum, we have already used and reused every word in the dictionary, and there is not too much left under our sun to discover. Originality is seemingly lost and depleted, yet the void of curiosity still remains empty and craving to be filled.

Technology and science march onward, curious as to what they might discover next. Even though the well is starting to run dry and the silver screen or other works of fiction have already given us a glimpse of what the future may hold. The desire for more and the curiosity of what 'maybe' has been recycled and reworked for countless generations. Is this simply the work of reincarnation? We can say the same questions keep appearing time and time again because it is the same soul that is doing the asking. Or, it might be a clue as to why and what we are looking for. If the same desires appear in every generation, then it could be that we seek that which was rightfully ours but has some how been lost. Do I, and people like me, have the empty void of curiosity to quest for the magic within us because it was taken away so very long ago?

Just food for thought.

"and there is not too much left under our sun to discover."

Most of the planet still actually, just the parts that are underwater. Plenty left to discover, its just getting harder to access it without a degree and a government grant.

Individually, there is much left to discover. Tv, internet and the like make the place seem pretty small, but when you think about it the place is pretty darn big. I think some of the emptiness and curiosity comes from a textbook style knowledge, but lack of experience. Reading about culture and thought and debating it online, is a lot different than going to the places and meeting the people and actually living it. We've numbed ourselves to some degree I think.

-had an off topic spiel, but realized that i'm basically passing out via lack of sleep and it won't likely make much sense. g'night! -

Luco wrote:"and there is not too much left under our sun to discover."

Most of the planet still actually, just the parts that are underwater. Plenty left to discover, its just getting harder to access it without a degree and a government grant.

It's often said that we know more about the moon then the depths of our oceans. I don't know how true that is because you never know the volume of what you are yet to discover and quantifying the type and quality of data in each case for direct comparison is difficult I imagine.

But the concept is there. We've actually been to the moon, there are depths of the sea where even robots struggle to go, where there is almost no light and which is undoubtedly full of mysterious organisms of which we've only had glimpses. Ad to that the jungles on the surface, there are parts of South America where lost cities have been found and lost again because of the inability to exactly plot a position and the jungle reclaims things so quickly. There was a TV programme last summer where a team went to a rainforest merely to discover new species, and they did by the dozen. It's research into new species of jungle and rainforest plants that hopes to unearth new chemical compounds for medicines.

Human knowledge is colossal, you simply can't take it all in. What I see is that some people can't see the beauty in nature and the universe or don't want to grapple with its complexities. That's why people want easy, appealing answers in things like religious creation and magic. Religion tells people they were simply 'made', and for a purpose, that they are special. That's why people liked to think the Earth was in the middle of the (small) universe. But the sun is the middle of our solar system, and that's no where near the centre of the universe, we are just a speck in existence, to claim otherwise is merely egotistical. Our entire human species and history is an insignificant speck in space and a fleeting moment in time. And yet the universe is an intricate and massive place, physics is beautiful, biology is beautiful, chemistry is beautiful. Whether it's the movements of the largest planets of the behaviour of the smallest atom. If people come to terms with their cosmic insignificance and instead learn to appreciate the beauty of the working of the natural universe and take a lifetime's intellectual nourishment from it, they wouldn't need the comforting or easy answers supplied through religion or magic. It gives a greater sense of encouragement to make the best of life because it is so short, and merely there to be enjoyed for what it is for however long you have it.

Psyker_9er wrote: Feeling extra philosophical today, just like I use to during my freshman year in philosophy class.

Psyker_9er wrote:*mini essay on general BS*

Can you at least take your eye opening revelations to Off Topic so that nobody has to read them? That'd be great.

I have a new idea for the experiment.

It is important in experiments of this kind to eliminate bias arising from knowledge of the experimental conditions, so we need to make this a double blind. That means that the people rolling the dice must have no knowledge about the lucky and unlucky people involved.

This is what needs to happen.

We establish as a basic condition of the experiment that it will involve the rolling of pairs of dice, and a higher roll is to be considered luckier than a lower roll.

First, we need to appoint several co-ordinators. I suggest Psyker-9er as it was his basic idea, and a couple of volunteers.

Then, people who claim themselves to be lucky or unlucky must submit their names to Psyker-9er. We should also include people who claim not to have any luck bias, or who don’t believe in luck. These are the control group.

Psyker-9er randomly assigns each person a number, so, for example, Howard A Treesong becomes Subject 23.

Now only Psyker-9er knows who each subject is, so he passes the numbered list of subjects to a second co-ordinator, and both lists to a third co-ordinator. The third co-ordinator will thereby know the match between numbered subject, name, and group.

The second co-ordinator splits the list into odd and even numbered subjects. These are passed to two operators.

Each operator then rolls two dice 100 times for each subject on his list and records the results. If the theory of luck is correct, there should be divergence between lucky subjects, who will get high rolls, unlucky subjects, who will get low rolls, and disbelieving subjects, who will get ‘average’ rolls. However this will not be apparent from the data at this step as the operators do not know which group each subject belongs to.

The operators send their results to the third co-ordinator

The third co-ordinator publishes the results, identified only by subject number.

We can all then do statistics to see the amount of variation between the subjects. Psyker-9er and the third co-ordinator are excluded from this step.

Once we publish our statistical analyses, Psyker-9er publishes his original list of names and subject numbers, and co-ordinator three confirms it.

We will then be able to see if there is any significant variation between the three groups.

sebster wrote:It strikes me that the only way to establish this would be to determine if people rolling high is in any way predictive of their future rolls.

That is, you'd observe the rolls of 50 people in games, each playing a dozen games, and track their total rolls, and their rolls on the most crucial rolls, which you'd define before hand as heavy weapon shots and leadership rolls, or something. Then you'd note who's luck was above average and who's was below.

Then you'd track those same 50 people over their next dozen games, and see if the people who recorded lucky results in their first dozen games were the same people who recorded lucky results in their next dozen.

you would also have to establish a rigid procedure for rolling in order to eliminate roller bias.

Say, have a third party place the dice in a cup before each roll.

dogma wrote:you would also have to establish a rigid procedure for rolling in order to eliminate roller bias.

Say, have a third party place the dice in a cup before each roll.

Definitely. There'd be even more problems with determining which are, and which aren't, the important rolls in the game. It'd be a very difficult project, and one I suspect would do nothing but prove what most of us already believe.

But Psyker_9er is the one who wants to establish that some people are inherently luckier than others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:We will then be able to see if there is any significant variation between the three groups.

The problem is that the people who claim they're lucky or unlucky still have control over submitting their results. This opens up to a few forms of selection bias - a person may roll entirely unlike their 'normal' results and re-roll. Or they might simply not bother to submit their results if they don't come up with an interesting set. Or they may even lie to sabotage the experiment. You'd need to actually have them attend some place to make their rolls - possibly a tournament or convention day.

And even then you wouldn't be dealing with the idea of luck manifesting itself when it matters, that would require observation from actual play.

ph34r wrote:

Psyker_9er wrote: Feeling extra philosophical today, just like I use to during my freshman year in philosophy class.

Psyker_9er wrote:*mini essay on general BS*

Can you at least take your eye opening revelations to Off Topic so that nobody has to read them? That'd be great.

Well Ph34r, in case you have forgotten, I will remind you again: If you don't like what I have to say, go read something else. That *mini essay on general BS* was actually on topic believe it or not. It had been pointed out to me that, even though I was in no way alive for the "Beat Generation" I am seemingly somehow copying them word for word. So I was wondering how a phenomenon like that could happen.

But I think what Ph34r is hinting at is actually true. This topic is getting to be just about beaten to death.

There have been many great ideas for different kinds of experiments to try and test things. Fantastic job every one, thanks for all your help. I just want to point out that all of these new ideas and my old idea share two things in common:

1) Since this is a website, the data can not truly be trusted.
&
2) They all begin and end with rolling dice.

Given those two things that all of our ideas have in common, I still think my experimental game can at the very least be fun. Those of you who have submitted ideas for a different kind of experiment, let me know if you decide to go through with them. Post a link here or send me a message and I will help out any way I can. This thread, however, is mine and I did put a lot of work into it. We all subscribe to a website based on war-games and rolling dice, so why not have this topic become a world wide game between all of us? Creating that casual and fun game is basically what I have been trying to do from the start.

I've reread the posts leading up to this point and it seems I overlooked a 9th category of luck.

Lucky Chaos:= Luck favors the random... Gravitational pull from the stars or seismic activity from butterflies flapping their wings can change the outcome of a dice roll more than I can.

Pick a category of luck, roll some dice according to the given challenge, and have fun. That is all I ask from you. We can agree to disagree about everything else, put it behind us, and just have some fun.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lucky Magician Trial 2: rolling for the sake of rolling. At work and bored, not really feeling "good vibes". Then again, I usually don't feel too lucky at work.

8th try to roll double 6 using 3d6

Genestealers need 5+ to save: rolled double 2

Failed to pick the lock at 15+ on a d20, rolled a 7.

I figured I would try one more time to resurrect the spirit of this thread. It may not be perfect, it wont be submitted to any government officials, and it doesn't adhere to scientific methods... But I promise you, it can be fun...

We can keep track of Wins, Losses, and Rolls. Obviously you will want to get a high number of Wins with a low number of Rolling and little too no Losses.

Brief Recap of Challenge One: (To be taken twice)
a) roll double six using 3d6
b) roll 2d6 to save. Roll 5+ if you don't normally play 40k.
c) roll one d20, you succeed on a roll of 15 or above.

Scenarios like option (a) above are designed to generate losses. You want one specific outcome but you got to keep trying until you get it. Example: the first try it took me 11 rolls to get the double 6. So that would count as 1 Win; 10 Losses; 11 Rolls.

Scenarios like (b) and (c) I'm going to simplify a bit, and say they are "one shot, one kill" so to speak, so it is more like an actual in game event. I know I originally said to count how many times it takes, but ignore that, it is no biggie. The concept behind the "one shot, one kill" type scenario of course, is that you want to win on the first roll. It will either count as 1 Win or 1 Loss, but always 1 Roll. So for my first try/example of rolling: I failed both (b) and (c) which counts as 0 Wins; 2 Losses; 2 Rolls... not doing so well

I will now give an example of how I tallied my pitiful excuse for lucky rolling from both attempts at Challenge 1:
Attempt 1:
a) 11th try
b) Genestealers failed
c) Failed to pick the lock
Win:1; Loss:10+1+1; Roll:11+1+1

Attempt 2:
a) 8th try
b) Genestealers failed
c) Failed to pick the lock
Win:1; Loss:7+1+1; Roll:8+1+1

Total:
Win:2; Loss:21; Roll:23

YIKES! I need to keep practicing... 2 wins out of 23 dice rolls! ouch, it hurts to see it spelled out like that.

****
Luco was the only other person to participate so far, and I have tallied his numbers for him:

Attempt 1:
a) A single try
b) Successful Tau Save
c) Failed to pick the lock
Win:1+1; Loss:1; Roll:3

Attempt 2:
a) A single try
b) Failed Tau saves
c) Failed to pick the lock.
Win:1; Loss:1+1; Roll:3

Total:
Win:3; Loss:3; Roll:6

Congratulations Luco, you are this months winner. So far, it seems you are luckier than I am

****
Now I would like to add a second set of challenges, that should also be attempted twice like Challenge 1.

Challenge 2:
a) How many times can you roll 3d6, and not roll any doubles? (this one can generate some wins for you; but you must stop as soon as you roll a double, at which time it counts as 1 loss. Remember to count how many times you roll.)

b) Blow up my 40k vehicle, with an armor value of 11. If you don't normally play 40k, roll 5+. (one shot, one kill)

c) We are playing the Monopoly game. You are close to bankrupting by landing on my Park Place or Board Walk, both with hotels... Roll 2d6, you have one chance to see if you can get 7 or greater to make it past "GO" and collect your $200 instead. If you roll doubles equaling higher than 7, it counts as a bonus point for a Win. (since, in the Monopoly game, that would mean you get to go again.)

---------------------------------------------
Luco,
Once you complete your two attempts at Challenge 2, you can create the next Challenge since you are this months winner. Even if it is just you and me competing head to head, mono y mono, man to man, Thunderdome style.