FIBS Board backgammon forum

I've been playing for some while here and there; also on FIBS.

I think the way most bg-servers (and people behind of course) think they have to present the game of backgammon with terrible random dicing, ridiculous amount of doubles per game, ridiculous amount of 'lucky flyers' - it is a disgrace for the game.

I was wondering if somebody knows a gammon site where the (random) dicing is close to real live backgammon. Please tell me.

I love to play backgammon. Good backgammon.

Vandyke

Dear Van Dyke. Every study of dice on fibs (and there have been many), indicate that in fact the dice rolls appear in the correct proportions. If you research this on the web, you will find that this is so. As far as I am aware, this also applies to every other bg site too. There has never been a study that shows that, for example, there are too many doubles or too many fly shots. Your feelings about fibs dice are just that, feelings. It is interesting to speculate how these ideas are formed in the first place and it appears that human observation, a highly subjective measuring instrument if it is not strictly controlled, is just too fallible. We see what we want to see. You may observe that in the last 30 rolls there have been ten doubles, twice as many as one might expect from probability, but this observation is flawed in several ways. It suffers from retrospective observation, that is, you didn't decide to count doubles before those thirty rolls, you decided after the fact. It suffers from insufficient sample size, 30 rolls is statistically nothing. if you were to tell me that the next 900 rolls would contain 300 doubles and you would be prepared to bet on it, that would be interesting, but I have a feeling that you won't!
The third flaw also lies in the subjective nature of human observation. We tend to notice a "freak" event, say for example, rolling 2-1 five times in a row. Firstly, this sequence is no more or less likely than a sequence of 5-1, 3-1, 4-2, 6-5 and 4-3, but who would notice that? Secondly, you wouldn't notice a run of of 100 rolls without a 2-1, rare though that would be.
The last observation that I will make, although there are many more interesting aspects of this phenomenon, is that the fantastic speed of play online, 2 or 3 times faster than IRL, means that in 2 hours play, we are 2 or 3 times as likely to observe runs of doubles for example. Again, we never notice the run of 30 or 40 rolls without one!
Backgammon is a dice game, wherever you play it. Love it or leave it! Love your paintings by the way! Perhaps you should stick to that.

Quote
I think the way most bg-servers (and people behind of course) think they have to present the game of backgammon with terrible random dicing, ridiculous amount of doubles per game, ridiculous amount of 'lucky flyers' - it is a disgrace for the game.

I was wondering if somebody knows a gammon site where the (random) dicing is close to real live backgammon. Please tell me.

LOL  

This was a good one.  

My experience is, that the dice in live backgammon behave even more curious  :angry:

I fully agree with dorbel. If you complain about dice, better present your statistics and proof, that somthing's wrong here. So far any attempt to find any anormality in FIBS' dice failed.

Cu on FIBS soon,

Hardy


P.S.: Join the FIBS Party 3rd/4th June in Köln --> www.fibsboard.com/index.php?showtopic=808[/size]

Maybe this address would satisfy you.
I think it is a good bg server and they prove the way the dice are played is really random. :agree:
http://www.truemoneygames.com/backgammon/security.dhtml

:bye:

QuoteI think it is a good bg server and they prove the way the dice are played is really random. :agree:
http://www.truemoneygames.com/backgammon/security.dhtml

TMG's statement

"This method offers our customers the most truly random dice in existence; even precision dice could not come close to this."

somhow amuses me. A real precision dice is random. It makes no sense to be more random than random  

The major problem when playing online for money is not, that the dice are not random enough, the problem ist, that players might build interfaces to use backgammon software to support their decisions. TMG checks the error rate of players in order to identify that kind of cheating. But knowing that, one could make some non-optimal decisions in between.

Therefore I am a bit reluctant playing for money online. And the best non-commercial backgammon server is IMHO FIBS [/size]  


Hardy    

Dorbel:
I said I love backgammon and I have played the game for over 40 years - long before it appeared on internet. And nobody has to 'explain' it is a dice game. I discovered that probably long before you even grew in your pamperstages

Besides that: I write software so I program as well for over 12 years. I programmed games and among them dice games. Thus I know where I am talking about when we discuss real random.

"Your feelings about fibs dice are just that, feelings."

I have read a lot of nonsens in my live but this beats all the nonsense together. What a crap. Where on earth is that based upon?
You seem to try to give your comment a pseudo intelligent psychological flavour: 'we see what we want to see'.
What a crap; how do YOU know what I want to see?

I like the way you write crap; maybe you should stick to that at your own blog.

puzzle_tOrico:
Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a try!
I think you'r the only one here who understands where I'm talking about.

Vandyke

QuoteI have read a lot of nonsens in my live but this beats all the nonsense together. What a crap. Where on earth is that based upon?

Exactly that is the point! Where are your  statements, that the FIBS' dice are  non-random, based upon ?    

At the Backgammon Galore you can find some discussions about the randomness of FIBS' dice. For instance here: http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+262

So far nobody could give any evidance, that FIBS' dice are biased. But you as a software programmer probably know quite well how to provide such information and will do so soon.

Looking forward.

Hardy  

Hi Hardy_whv and Vandyke

Thx for your replies

I would like to make a point on this.
I prevent that I shall be a little "mathy" or "phylosophical" (I am afraid of being a little pedantic)

I do agree that precision dice are the best approach to a random process on the board. Though, the dice are physical objects and so, influenced by the environement (heat, damages...)
This means that their behaviour is probably random in the beginning but they are not after some time (I do not know if hours, weeks, years or centuries). Though, the diode behaves under the laws of the quantum physics and this universe IS random under any circumstance. So I believe the diode is more random than the dice.

Regarding the randomness of FIBS, I have programmed several random process simulations in the University (network traffic, queue distribution...) and I was really worry about the randomness level of the simulation, so I read a lot.
For me, a random event is an event where every result at each try has the same probability of happening but this is not necessary true for the whole set of tries. I mean, when playing the dice, each face has the same probability of happening, but in the whole match (or our whole life's matches) the distributions are not necessary the same. We could even have the situation where a number has never come out and the event is still random.
I found that the computers do not make a random sequence but a pseudo-random one. The sequence is obtained after a "seed" (normally obtained by the current time and the mouse mouvement). With this seed, we could obtain the whole sequence. The way they produce the sequence let think it is random but it is not really because it has a cycle. I agree that this cycle is VERY long but it exists.
Anyhow, it is true that we could obtain the same sequence twice but it is almost impossible in our lifes. It is like the experiment of making 1000 monkeys  to write on 1000 typewritters for 1000 years. We could obtain The Bible, true, but it is quite improbable.
So, I agree that the sequence is probably not random but it is so near of being it that I think we should not worry about.

More information on:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=23788
http://random.mat.sbg.ac.at/tests/

And to finish, I LOVE FIBS.
This is the only server where I enjoy playing BG and the people do not get mad or insult when losing a match (yahoo, msn... are like that)
I only regret of not having more time to pass by and participate at all the tournaments.

Take care.

Quote
What a crap. Where on earth is that based upon?

I believe that was answered in dorbels post - but then you probably didnt read it all - much as you havent put much effort into your examination of FIBS dice...join the line of dice whiners - and by all means, please play elsewhere.  

QuoteDorbel:
I discovered that probably long before you even grew in your pamperstages

Now, I don't think it's necessary to mention Dorbel's little 'problem' here. Admittedly, at first, I was a bit put off when playing him, but I soon realized that behind the baby clothing is a keen, insightful mind.

QuoteI think the way most bg-servers (and people behind of course) think they have to present the game of backgammon with terrible random dicing, ridiculous amount of doubles per game, ridiculous amount of 'lucky flyers' - it is a disgrace for the game.

I was wondering if somebody knows a gammon site where the (random) dicing is close to real live backgammon. Please tell me.

When you open a thread with direct accusations of fraud on the part of backgammon server operators, you'd better have something to back it up. Otherwise, you will get shouted down and ridiculed by people who've seen these allegations since the inception of online backgammon more than a decade ago.

In my experience, the people who make these accusations often have no idea that (1) hundreds of threads like this have come before, and (2) not one has ever shown to be valid. The issue of "random" dice has been argued about more than any single topic in the entire realm of online backgammon (just as it has in other online games that depend on random cards, dice, etc.)

It's also my experience that the people who make these accusations are exactly the people who are least equipped to understand the mathematics behind randomness. You state that you are a programmer, which ought to enable you to apply critical thinking to the issue, but your statement that "most bg-servers think they have to present the game with terrible random dicing" indicates that you have not.

The operators of the backgammon servers have put significant effort into trying to dispel these rumors. In fact, a few years ago there was a series of "randomness wars" among the commercial backgammon servers, with some sites going so far as to install military-grade hardware-based random number generators in hopes that would satisfy everyone. Of course, it didn't.

As someone else mentioned, there is a strong human psychology factor at play here, and that is really the underlying issue. People remember certain rolls or series of rolls precisely because they are memorable. In online backgammon, this effect is significantly amplified by the speed of play compared to "over the board" play. Online, you play many more games than you ever could over the board, so your odds of seeing memorable rolls increases. The rapid pace of play also amplifies the pychological effect of a series of lucky or unlucky rolls (e.g. your opponent getting doubles three times in a row--in less than 30 seconds.)

All of this makes it feel like something must be wrong with the dice; we've all felt it. But it is nothing more than that--a normal human feeling. In the same way the human brain is poorly equipped to make good choices about statistics (see "Las Vegas"), the brain sees patterns or creates conspiracies where none exist.

QuoteAt the Backgammon Galore you can find some discussions about the randomness of FIBS' dice. For instance here: http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+262

And of course, everyone's favorite, the "Official rec.games.backgammon Software Complaint Form"

http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+546

Hi,

Am thoroughly enjoying this ridiculous revisiting of the "random dice" discussion *yawn*.  I have nothing to add about dice, about fibs, about crap, about blogs, or about lewscannons' adjustment to the many diaper fetishes on fibs.  i do, however, want to observe that the very very creepy icon used by vandyke looks suspiciously like my idea of Shuggie's face.  Am I alone here?  Moreover, doesn't Hardy's icon look a lot like gimmeluck?  Come on, folks, stick to your own images.

mookie

Vandyke,

I think the following exerpt of the questionairre fergy linked needs to be answered before we go any further:

------------------------------
I haven't formalised my suspicions, presented a falsifiable hypothesis,
designed an experiment, gathered data and made reasonable conculsions
because I (check all that apply):

 [ ] don't know how;
 [ ] can't be bothered;
 [ ] already KNOW I'm right so there's no point doing any of that stuff
-----------------------------

Failing that, you should demand your money back from FIBS, Inc.

GB

QuoteAnd of course, everyone's favorite, the "Official rec.games.backgammon Software Complaint Form"

http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+546

Please don't forget this one (the awesome psych study and my personal favorite):

http://www.alef.co.uk/fibs/archive/dysfunction.html



socksey




I try to take one day at a time - but sometimes several days attack me at once. - Jennifer Unlimited

QuoteMoreover, doesn't Hardy's icon look a lot like gimmeluck?  Come on, folks, stick to your own images.

Hey Mookie,

WHO is gimmeluck? WHY does he use _MY_ avatar? WHERE can I have a look at "his" icon? There is no member gimmeluck here  

Or do you mean I_am_not_gimmeluck ? His avatar looks quite different.



Hardy_with_his_own_avatar    

I don't think enough attention has been paid to the 'random mookie' factor, in which mookie will periodically show up while fibsters are showering, and demand to take an inventory of the cheese in their refrigerators. Non-showering Fibsters, like Resh, seem to be exempt from this strange intrusion.

QuoteHey Mookie,

WHO is gimmeluck? WHY does he use _MY_ avatar? WHERE can I have a look at "his" icon? There is no member gimmeluck here  

Or do you mean I_am_not_gimmeluck ? His avatar looks quite different.

I think the point mookie was making about his dear freind Im_not_gimmeluck (the fibster formerly known as gimmeluck) was that he actually looks like the avatar - not that there is any similarlity between avatars    

QuoteI think the point mookie was making about his dear freind Im_not_gimmeluck (the fibster formerly known as gimmeluck) was that he actually looks like the avatar - not that there is any similarlity between avatars 

Thanks Diane, that's precisely what I meant.  Not to confuse the issue, but why is Hardy trying so hard to look like Im_not_gimmeluck?  I mean, I like gimme as much as the next fibster, but that's a pretty scrawny body, the kinda body that Charles Atlas could work on.

mookie

QuoteI don't think enough attention has been paid to the 'random mookie' factor, in which mookie will periodically show up while fibsters are showering, and demand to take an inventory of the cheese in their refrigerators. Non-showering Fibsters, like Resh, seem to be exempt from this strange intrusion.

I would like to posit a defense of this factor.  

1. My visits are never random.  I do them according to a pattern figured by the fibs random dice generator, and as our friend with the creepy avatar (that's you, vandyke) has pointed out, that makes the visits "more exciting" with me visiting many of you double times and while you are at the bar.

2. I'm not always looking for cheese.  At stacy's house, for instance, I'm doing an inventory of her shoes.  C'mon, lews, be a bit more precise in your language.

3.  As far as I can tell, everyone (outside of Honeygirl) enjoys my visits.  Many people have gone so far as to not call the police immediately.

4. resh does take showers. sometimes. i think. probably.

5.  There is an emotional cost to me when I make these visits.  I mean: look at those avatars.  Would you like to see vandyke in the shower?  

mookie