Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Psyker_9er wrote:
What if there has already been some one who studied his luck at casino dice? What if he wanted to publish a book, but the Mafia found out? Or any casino owning organized crime boss for that matter. I might want to be more careful with what I say

They would probably pay you an immense amount of money to promote your book, put you on TV to push it, and make sure everyone knew that you had discovered a way to beat the odds... and then rake in the dough as the suckers lapped it up and started throwing fistfulls of money onto the tables, convinced that they had mastered your technique for mindmushing dice or cards into favoring them.

Actually if gambling didn't work out statistically casinos would be out of business.

What do you mean by, "if gambling didn't work out statistically?"

Do you mean if it didn't work out in favor of the casino or the gambler?

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:What do you mean by, "if gambling didn't work out statistically?"

Do you mean if it didn't work out in favor of the casino or the gambler?

Eric

He is saying that if casino games didn't, over the long term, work out to accurately favor the casino, they wouldn't be in that business anymore.
There is not a single game in a casino that does not statistically favor the casino, not even any 50/50 chances. They essentially have a business modeled after probability, that in a near infinite number of attempts at a game of chance, they will eventually come out ahead and make profits on those people playing them.

Yep.
I know, re: gambling being in favor of the house.

The way he worded his statement, I was not sure if *he* did, though.
I could see it easily being meant as "work[ing] out statistically" in favor of the gambler.

Eric

Psyker_9er wrote:We got ourselves a Lab-A and a Lab-B situation here. So for the purpose of this thread, and the topic of this thread only, I will conclude with:
The Realistic Probability of Rolling 6s Continuously is a very low probability. Having said that, I can see and understand how the OP came up with the perceived conclusions that he did.

The probability of rolling 6s continuously with perfect dice is exactly as dictated by math and statistics. The odds with imperfect dice can be observed by running extensive tests, as one Dakka user did to confirm the bias of small GW and chessex dice towards rolling 1s slightly more than average.
The most likely conclusion in this thread is that you, Psyker_9er, do not have a strong grasp on the concept of science or math, and are irrationally paranoid that there is a conspiracy out to suppress the knowledge of the existence of magic powers.

In the same game, I rolled 4d6 and they were all ones. On the following roll, I rolled 3d6 and they were all ones.

What were the odds? 1/1296 followed by 1/216 or 1/279,936?

(Oh, and I threw those dice away)

You threw the dice away?
Ah come on you're kidding right?

TedintheShed wrote:In the same game, I rolled 4d6 and they were all ones. On the following roll, I rolled 3d6 and they were all ones.

What were the odds? 1/1296 followed by 1/216 or 1/279,936?

(Oh, and I threw those dice away)

Once you had rolled the first set, the odds of the second set were 1/(6^3). The odds of you rolling 4d6 all ones and then 3d6 all ones is 1/(6^7).

Psyker_9er wrote:Gen-whY?, Beat Generation, Elvis Generation, James Dean, transcendentalism, or what ever you want to call it. The concept of thinking for yourself has been around for a very long time.

My point is that you aren't thinking for yourself at all, but aping thoughts created by others.

Either way, thinking for yourself does not entail stating that only your thoughts are correct. Doing so would involve being enslaved to a certain sort of idea regarding freedom of will.

Notably if, after your posting, I chose to reject all forms of logic I would be doing so because you told me so, and because I thought you were correct, not simply because I came to the epiphany that logic was too rigid.

We all think for ourselves, or none of us do. There really isn't any sort of middle ground that does not exchange intent for manipulable nature.

Psyker_9er wrote:

hemingway wrote:
so skepticism of scientific conclusions is neither stupid nor should it be ridiculed, because skepticism is precisely what the method is based on. make a claim, prove it, and bob is your uncle. however, when lab B says drug Y doesn't work in spite of what lab A says, and both have lab reports and conclusions supporting the theory, the Pfizer is going to go with lab A's report and publish their results in their ads in People magazine because IT WILL SELL DRUGS.

QFT

We got ourselves a Lab-A and a Lab-B situation here. So for the purpose of this thread, and the topic of this thread only, I will conclude with:
The Realistic Probability of Rolling 6s Continuously is a very low probability. Having said that, I can see and understand how the OP came up with the perceived conclusions that he did.

That's not an indictment of science at all. Its an indictment of people that are less intelligent, or knowledgeable with respect to a given thing, than other people.

Perception does not negate probability.

You are either confused or ignorant.

dogma wrote:You are either confused or ignorant.

Why not both?

if he is confused, doesnt that by definition make him ignorant?

You could know various bits of relevant information, thus being not ignorant, and be confused by them.

i guess my statement makes more sense backwards, bein ignorant makes you confused...i dont know...maybbe it doesnt make sense at all...