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.

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.