Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Good day,
I was recently reading some D&D stuff, and came accross a strange concept. Rolling the 1's out. By gathering all your dice, rolling all of them, taking out the 1's, then rolling the 1's again, and taking out the ones which rolled 1's, then storing them in a specilized case where they wouldn't roll. Due to the odds of getting a triple 1 on a single dice(though less so on a D20 than a D6), these could be used at emergency moments when you really need to 'not' roll a 1.
Now, if you come back to the Wargaming systems, would you frown upon this? consider it cheating? etc,
-Boo
Grots/SoB/CSP/AWN/DE
Well, it's not cheating at all. You still have a 1/6 chance of rolling a 1. They could store it in a cryogenically frozen cellar for all I care!
Indeed. Each roll is an event which is independent from each other event. The outcome of prior rolls does not affect the outcome of future rolls. Dice which have rolled two ones in a row are no more or less likely to roll a third one in a row for having done so.
There are two assertions, both here and in the post above, which are probably not strictly true. Most dice, for instance, are not perfectly constructed and do not actually have exactly a 1/6 chance of rolling a one. Further, it is likely that each die roll does actually affect the outcome of future rolls--just as everything that ever happens is likely affected by everything that has ever happened before it.
However, the fact that the dice are probably imperfect doesn't really matter. It won't allow you to pick out dice which are less likely to roll ones by the method you describe.
Similarly, the fact that prior rolls probably do have some affect on future rolls is irrelevant--that effect is almost certainly insignificant or undetectably slight, and it also wouldn't necessarily bias the die away from ones.
This isn't a method of cheating. This is just a demonstration of someone's failure to actually understand probability. If you did it in a game, I wouldn't object. I would just laugh at you.
Once again, the conservative, sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor!
Well if you want to cheat without actually cheating I'd suggest taking all the dice you have, roll them all individually about a thousand times each, and jot down what numbers pop up, most dice you will see fairly even odds, but if some roll lower than normal by a fairly large amount, then keep them in a seperate box for leadership test, and use the other ones for rolling high. Since most dice aren't actually created equal the ones that rolled high a lot should continue to roll high, based on the percentage you had when testing.
This is true, apparently, as dice with rounded edges actually have preference outcomes. Therefore after a load of rolls it is possible they will have a tendency for a number. However this also means the number on the opposite side likely has the same preference, i.e. will have preferences for 1's and 6's. But in all honestly this will pay off for you possibly once in a thousand games after hours of rolling dice.
"Should take you a while though because of your sloth like pace"
Click here and watch Gedderz try and cross the road
Interestingly, I do believe there is a science to dice rolling (it's called 'hedronology' if you're interested). If I'm not mistaken, there's a university in Germany that's a leader in the field.
I recall reading in an issue of Fanatic that rolling the same dice over an extended period charges the particles on the dice, creating a weak magnet on given sides. Make of that what you will.
I have noticed that changing the way you roll can alter the percentage of higher numbers...but that could just be my mind playing tricks on me.
Which reminds me of one of my biggest bugbears, people who don't roll their dice but just place them onto the table after cupping them in their hand- thats not a roll, the clue is in the name. This is the reason my girlfriend and I no longer play Risk or Monopoly against each other.
PLAN CLAN MAN!!
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man- S. Johnson
Hmm, just because there is always the same chance for each value on a dice, doesn't mean that the chance of getting a chain is also entirly random.
the highest 'chance' on rolling 2 dice, is to get a 7, as 6/36 of the possible values for rolling two dice reach that outcome, with less combinations the further you get from it, with 2 & 12 only have 1 combination each. In turn, to advance that, on rolling 3 dice, the probabilty of getting a triple 1, (or tripple 6) is lower than the probabilty of rolling any of the middle numbers. So, wouldn't rolling an dice be unlikley to get 4x1's due to the only.. 1 combination in 1296 possible results of it being 4 1s on a single dice throw, ?
-other wording: 2 dice are 'most likely' to roll a 7 -compared to any of their other possibles- due to it being the number with most combinations, so by increasing the dice used, the liklyhood of the more extream combinations (ie, the highest & lowest number due to only having one combination each) has decreased, no?
-boo
Grots/SoB/CSP/AWN/DE
No, Boo, it doesn't work that way. While it is true that you only have a 1/216 chance of rolling three ones in a row, the probability that you'll roll a third one after rolling the first two is still 1/6. You're essentially looking at both getting a 1/36 event (two ones in a row) and a 1/6 event. But, you've already gotten the 1/36 event. It's already happened. It doesn't affect the probability of the next roll. In essence, instead of there being a 1/36 chance of getting the first two sixes in a row, the probability goes from 1/36 to 1 once you've actually gotten those two rolls.
I could try to explain it to you in another way, but the fact remains: the probability of rolling a 1 on a die is the same regardless of what it's rolled previously: rolling two ones in a row on your last two rolls doesn't alter the probability of rolling a one on your next roll. Those are just the facts. Your suggestion is based on a common misconception, but it is a misconception nonetheless.
Once again, the conservative, sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor!
I don't quite get how rolling 3 at the same time, and rolling 3 dice 1 after the other, changes the possible outcome, could you expand please?
-boo
Grots/SoB/CSP/AWN/DE