Dicewhining and how not to counter it

[pck]

One of the many infinite loops FIBSshouts is stuck in pertains to allegations of unfair dice. "The server gives better dice to the bots", "My opp just rolled 66 55 44 66", etc etc. Typical countering responses to this are:

(1) "All sequences of rolls are equally probable"
(2) "dicetest shows that the rolls on FIBS are fair"
(3) "Playing better will make you luckier"

I believe that all three of these counters are confused and/or weak. Here's why:

When a dice whiner (DW) complains that he just rolled "12, the only roll that did not give me the match" or that "the bot rolled 16 66 55 to get off the bar, jump my five prime and win the race", then what he is complaning about is not simply that he rolled 12 or that the bot rolled 16 66 55. He would after all not have complained if the bot had rolled 16 66 55 from the bar on a closed home. What the DW is complaining about is the fact that the rolls in question were extremely fortunate/unfortunate in that particular situation. What he is complaining about is his luck, that is, his rolls with respect to the current situation on the board. This is quite a trivial matter, however, the counterargument in (1) fails to take into account precisely this point. Rolling 12 not to win the match when any other roll does is unlucky. Therefore, to answer that "12 has the same probability of showing up as any other roll" (*) does not even address the complaint. The DW did not complain about there being too many or too few 12s, he complained about 12 showing up just when it was highly inconvenient to him.

A counterargument to (2) was given in http://www.fibsboard.com/general-chit-chat/the-old-dice-controversy/msg28676/#msg28676
While dicetest turning out bad results would show that there is something wrong with the dice generator (but not necessarily that the server "cheats" as in giving certain players better or worse rolls), good dicetest data is no proof (not even a strong indication) that there are no flaws in the randomness of the dice sequences or the luck of certain players.

As for (3), as explained in http://www.fibsboard.com/fibsboard-forum-matches/how-do-%27luck%27-calculations-work/msg23383/#msg23383
being the luckier player in more matches is not the same as being the luckier player over all of one's matches. This is a subtle but crucial difference which is very much prone to generate confusions. (It certainly did for me until the above thread was started.) The total amount of luck a player receives from his rolls over all of his matches is not correlated with his skill. Getting more luck than one's opponent in more matches, however, is. That is why playing well wins more matches in the long run than playing badly - skill does not generate luck, it manages it by influencing the number of matches over which it can spread.

---

(*) Strictly speaking it isn't even correct that all sequences have equal probability since a double such as 44 has only half the chance of being rolled than, for example, 14 has. This is because the rules of backgammon do not distinguish between rolling a 14 and a 41. But even that is entirely beside the point regarding the DW's complaint.

[diane]

When a dice whiner (DW) complains that he just rolled "12, the only roll that did not give me the match" or that "the bot rolled 16 66 55 to get off the bar, jump my five prime and win the race", then what he is complaning about is not simply that he rolled 12 or that the bot rolled 16 66 55. He would after all not have complained if the bot had rolled 16 66 55 from the bar on a closed home. What the DW is complaining about is the fact that the rolls in question were extremely fortunate/unfortunate in that particular situation. What he is complaining about is his luck, that is, his rolls with respect to the current situation on the board. This is quite a trivial matter, however, the counterargument in (1) fails to take into account precisely this point. Rolling 12 not to win the match when any other roll does is unlucky. Therefore, to answer that "12 has the same probability of showing up as any other roll" (*) does not even address the complaint. The DW did not complain about there being too many or too few 12s, he complained about 12 showing up just when it was highly inconvenient to him.

This is where I still disagree with your premise that playing better does not factor in this.

For a roll, or sequence of rolls to be lucky or convenient to a player, they have to occur when they are useful. You said that too.

The art of playing the game well, is to maximise the number of times you are in a position to take full advantage of a good roll, and to not be too badly hurt by a rubbish roll.

Hence..probability...In a match the other morning this was illustrated beautifully by my opponent rolling 66, 66, 66, 66 whilst on the bar. [yes, that exact sequence, and fortunately a good enough and courteous enough player to not whine whine about it  ].

In that position, he has every right to feel a bit like the server has it in for him 
Had he rolled in in the bear off, I would have had every right to feel like the server had it in for me 

The sequence is exactly the same, the human's perception is the only thing that is changing.

The dice will throw up that sequence, it isn't rigged or skewed or victimising anyone. The key is to appreciate it doesn't happen very often - and of course that getting angry/frustrated/upset about it really doesn't change anything.

What you need to be doing as a player is making sure you are not on the bar when it happens to you, and that you havent let your opponent get away at a close score so that if he does that, you get caned by it......simple really 

Of course it isn't possible to be that much in control - but as you strive to improve, you strive to get more control over those very things. And that was the whole point of the thread about playing better improving 'luck', because it does.

[pck]

The art of playing the game well, is to maximise the number of times you are in a position to take full advantage of a good roll, and to not be too badly hurt by a rubbish roll.

Playing well simply means to make the move (or one of the moves) which improves your chances of winning the match the most (or reduces it the least if it's a bad roll). The difference between your pre-roll probability to win the match and your post-roll/best-possible-move probability to win it is your luck - the change in your equity, given that you make the most of the roll you got.

In that position, he has every right to feel a bit like the server has it in for him
Had he rolled in in the bear off, I would have had every right to feel like the server had it in for me

The sequence is exactly the same, the human's perception is the only thing that is changing.

I agree with the first two lines but disagree with the final one. That is precisely the mistake I'm pointing out about (1). In the final line, you can only make the point you're stating work if you interpret the whining to be about the rolls alone. But as I tried to explain, the whining is not about the rolls themselves, it is about luck. It is about rolls in certain situations. Rolling 66 66 66 in a bearoff that would otherwise have been lost is hugely lucky, rolling it from the bar with only the 6 point covered isn't. That's exactly what you say in the first two lines above. Then in the third line you illegitimately drop the situational aspect and arrive at the false conclusion that it is all about the rolls themselves and therefore about perception.

Of course it isn't possible to be that much in control - but as you strive to improve, you strive to get more control over those very things. And that was the whole point of the thread about playing better improving 'luck', because it does.

That was not the point of the thread. Playing better doesn't improve your luck. You cannot control your luck. Luck is what is given to you by the dice and the dice alone. With a given roll all you can do is not squander your luck by making the best possible move. That is what we call skill. Skill in bg is not squandering your luck. That is the only option you have to maximise your chances of winning. If you could influence or control your luck by some means of gameplay strategy, it wouldn't even deserve to be called luck. As mentioned above, skill does not generate luck, it manages it. It's a rather subtle point, and easy to miss.

[diane]

As mentioned above, skill does not generate luck, it manages it. It's a rather subtle point, and easy to miss.

Its odd - but with all the same words, ideas and concepts...I disagree with your conclusions  - but I'm ok with that.  For me, the conclusion is -  correctly managed, luck increases.

And it was 66, 66, 66, 66 

[pck]

Its odd - but with all the same words, ideas and concepts...I disagree with your conclusions  - but I'm ok with that.  

You shouldn't be. Maybe reading http://www.fibsboard.com/fibsboard-forum-matches/how-do-%27luck%27-calculations-work/msg23383/#msg23383 again will help, I don't know how to put the issue any clearer than I did in that post.

For me, the conclusion is -  correctly managed, luck increases.

Don't conflate luck with probability. I have seen that several times in luck discussions in shouts. The (misguided) idea behind that is that a move which preserves the maximal amount of equity (= match winning chances) somehow leads to "luckier" rolls in the future. It doesn't. All possible future probabilities of winning the match are already included in your current equity. Luck cannot beget even more luck: A lucky roll increases your equity. That's it. It does not, not even potentially, increase your future equity/equities.

I have attached a pdf file with a table which I made around the time the how-do-luck-calculations-work thread was created. It uses ficticious data to illustrate the progress of match winning chances, luck and skill totals in a bg match. Perhaps this can be of help to understand the concept of luck better.

[diane]

You shouldn't be.
I don't know how to put the issue any clearer than I did in that post.
Don't conflate luck with probability.
The idea behind that is that a move which preserves the maximal amount of equity somehow leads to "luckier" rolls in the future. It doesn't.

Well I am.
You are wordy for sure, meaning is hard to find though.
Luck and probability are linked, how could they not be, inversely proportional I would say  .
It sooo does, by the very nature of what it is. Maybe you are still confused about what constitutes luck?

[pck]

Well I am.
You are wordy for sure, meaning is hard to find though.
Luck and probability are linked, how could they not be, inversely proportional I would say  .

I'm as wordy as clarity requires. These are not trivial issues which can be properly understood in five minutes and without study. Luck and probability are linked for sure, what I advised against was treating them as the same. Lucky rolls increase your probability of winning. They do not increase the probability of getting more lucky rolls.

Luck cannot beget even more luck: A lucky roll increases your equity. That's it. It does not, not even potentially, increase your future equity/equities.

It sooo does, by the very nature of what it is.

After a lucky roll your equity increases. To have future equities increased, you need more lucky rolls. The "nature" of luck is not such that if you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk, it somehow increases your chances of finding another one.

Maybe you are still confused about what constitutes luck?

At this point I estimate the chances of that at extremely close to zero.

[pck]

I've given the issue of luck some more thought and I think I can now spill some light on a core conceptual problem the origin of which wasn't as clear to me as it should have been. It regards the misguided belief that "you can make/influence you luck". Brace yourselves, this is going to be wordy.

Here and elsewhere I've said a number of times that "if you can influence it, it isn't luck". The counter to that has mostly been "if I can increase my winning chances (for example by making a skillful play in bg), I'm helping my luck". I'm going to argue that this leads to confusion if taken too literally.

Let's say that one's chances of encountering some event E in an experiment X, that is, the probabiltiy of E being the outcome of X, is 60%. It now so happens that you have the means to increase that probability to, say, 80%. So assume that, being a fan of E, you do just that. We like to accompany a situation like this in everyday language with words such as "I helped my luck a little". What we mean by this, however, is not that we increased our luck, but that we increased our chances, that is, we reduced the amount of luck necessary for E to happen. Whether E does actually occur or not is still entirely due to luck (even if the amount of it is different). Of course, if E occurs, then because of our prior interference we won't be able to say that we have been as lucky as we would have been if we had decided not to meddle and had stuck with the original 60%. But what was increased prior to E happening were our chances of seeing E. Chances/probabilities are what we speak of before an experiment X is performed. Luck is what we speak of after the outcome of X has been fixed. In fact, to speak of luck only makes sense post-X.

This is why it makes no sense to speak of increasing one's luck. One may have a certain amount of influence over one's chances (and to exert that influence to its best possible effect is called skill), but influencing luck - the realization of a chance - is forever out of our reach. If it were not, if we could control luck, then we could control the outcome of X. But then it would no longer make sense to speak of E having a 60 or 80% probability before we conduct X. A little critical reflection on the use of the term "luck" can actually reveal this result immediately: We associate "luck" with expressions such as "not due to skill", "undeserved", "surprising", "not due to anyone's doing". But other expressions such as the aforementioned "helping one's luck" can cloud our understanding enough to cause confusion. We may, wrongfully, be inclined to identify luck with the probability that we will get lucky.

Regarding backgammon, a skillful move retains one's highest possible chances of winning. But whether those chances are actually realized is called ("due to") luck. Playing better than your opponent means that you reduce the amount of luck you need to win the match. So your wins can use up only small amounts of (good) luck. If on the other hand you lose, it will be with a large amount of bad luck, because your worse-than-you playing opponent has to overcome the skill difference plus whatever remaining amount of chances he has to survive to reach victory. Now. Since in the long run luck totals to zero for everyone, your good luck will spread over many matches (the ones you win, where you are slightly luckier than your opp) while your bad luck will pool in only a few matches (the ones you lose, which can only happen if you get very unlucky). So if you consistently play better than him, the matches where you get luckier than your opp will outnumber those in which he gets the better luck. It is in this sense in which it is possible to say that skill is luck management.

And that, not "you can get more luck by skillful playing", was the point of the how-do-luck-calculations-work thread.

[diane]

I've given the issue of luck some more thought and I think I can now spill some light on a core conceptual problem the origin of which wasn't as clear to me as it should have been. It regards the misguided belief that "you can make/influence you luck". Brace yourselves, this is going to be wordy.

Here and elsewhere I've said a number of times that "if you can influence it, it isn't luck". The counter to that has mostly been "if I can increase my winning chances (for example by making a skillful play in bg), I'm helping my luck". I'm going to argue that this leads to confusion if taken too literally.

Let's say that one's chances of encountering some event E in an experiment X, that is, the probabiltiy of E being the outcome of X, is 60%. It now so happens that you have the means to increase that probability to, say, 80%. So assume that, being a fan of E, you do just that. We like to accompany a situation like this in everyday language with words such as "I helped my luck a little". What we mean by this, however, is not that we increased our luck, but that we increased our chances, that is, we reduced the amount of luck necessary for E to happen. Whether E does actually occur or not is still entirely due to luck (even if the amount of it is different). Of course, if E occurs, then because of our prior interference we won't be able to say that we have been as lucky as we would have been if we had decided not to meddle and had stuck with the original 60%. But what was increased prior to E happening were our chances of seeing E. Chances/probabilities are what we speak of before an experiment X is performed. Luck is what we speak of after the outcome of X has been fixed. In fact, to speak of luck only makes sense post-X.

And that, not "you can get more luck by skillful playing", was the point of the how-do-luck-calculations-work thread.

No - it wasn't..the point of the thread was how do luck CALCULATIONS work - ie if analysed by gnu, would the luck factor you got increase if you were playing more skillfully. It was never will I be more lucky if I play better. The reason for asking the question was to answer why during gnu analysis, bots often come up as lucky, more than the usual percent of 'luckier' than by sheer probability alone.

That is why the title is what it is, not 'How do I get a date with Lady Luck'...Or what breed of chicken sacrifice does she prefer?

I am still convinced you are saying the same thing, but I use different language - and you example proves the concept I was wrestling with at the time I asked the question.

This is why this seems a bit pointless to me, and I am happy that you think you are right, whilst I am happy with the understanding I have.

[pck]

While I'm now pretty sure that we have the same understanding, you've made it extremely hard to see that. Even in the text above, you phrase the idea both incorrectly and (half-)correctly (and correctly for the first time in this thread).

Provided you outplay your opponent(s) regularly, it is not your luck which increases, it is the frequency with which you get more luck than your opponent. If we call a match in which you have been luckier than your opp a "lucky match", then you will get more lucky matches. You will not get more luck (in the only sense available, which is your total luck over all matches). The distinction is conceptually and numerically crucial.

You kept repeating that luck increases/improves etc.:

(1) [...] you strive to get more control over those very things. And that was the whole point of the thread about playing better improving 'luck', [...]because it does.

(2) [...] For me, the conclusion is -  correctly managed, luck increases.

(3) [...] if analysed by gnu, would the luck factor you got increase if you were playing more skillfully. It was never will I be more lucky if I play better.

(4) [...] The reason for asking the question was to answer why during gnu analysis, bots often come up as lucky, more than the usual percent of 'luckier' than by sheer probability alone.

(1) and (2) plainly get it wrong. In (3) the second part gets it right, but it does not actually contradict the first part as the use of "it was never" suggests. (4) starts out fine, then gets confused at the end, using "luckier" and "probability" in an unintelligible way (what is "by sheer probability alone" supposed to mean?).

Finally, you distorted the sense of my previous post by erasing the 4th and 5th paragraphs in your quote, making it look as if And that, not "you can get more luck by skillful playing", was the point of the how-do-luck-calculations-work thread refers to Chances/probabilities are what we speak of before an experiment X is performed. Luck is what we speak of after the outcome of X has been fixed. In fact, to speak of luck only makes sense post-X. It doesn't. In terms of content, the 3rd and 4th paragraphs belong together, as do the 5th and 6th.

[pck]

How still not to counter dicewhining

Another argument against dice whining not covered by (1)-(3) that keeps being discussed in shouts is about the "independence of the rolls". The idea is that dice whiners are claiming that it is a sign of non-randomness of the dice, or even rigging, if certain rolls, such as big doubles, appear in clusters. According to this view

(A)

The sequence 66 66 66 is less likely to occur than 11 22 66, because before I roll the final 66 in the former case, I have already exhausted my "fair share" of 6s.

The counterargument is

(C)

"Dice have no memory" and therefore it is unremarkable to roll 66 66 66. In terms of surprise, only the last 66 counts, since what we really do is wait for 66 66 to appear (which eventually will happen) and then act (1/36)³-surprised if another 66 turns up, when in fact we only should act 1/36-surprised.

Both (A) and (C) are confused. Moreover, (C) is no counter to (A).

To see this, let's rephrase the claims:

(A) says: With random dice, I cannot roll 66s forever, therefore, the more 66s I roll, the less likely it will be for the next roll to be a 66 because the total number of 66s must even out to 1 in 36 in the long run.

It is true that the number of 66s will most likely even out in the long run [3]. However, this statement refers to an experiment in which a sequence of many rolls is considered, while the experiment conducted after rolling 66 66 is "roll one pair of dice". The results of previous rolls have no influence on the outcome of the next roll [1], hence the experiment's sample space contains 36 elements, each with a probability of 1/36 assigned. Thus, the probability of rolling 66 after any sequence of rolls will always be 1/36. (A)'s error is to compare probabilities from the sample space for a single roll with probabilities from a sample space which contains sequences of many rolls.

So if we indeed may assume independence of single rolls, it may look like (C)'s criticism gets it right. But it doesn't:

(C) says: After rolling 66 66 we can only be 1/36-surprised to roll another 66. That is correct. But it does not follow that therefore rolling 66 66 66 is entirely unremarkable. If it were indeed correct to say that, because "dice have no memory", it is unremarkable to roll 66 66 66, it would also be unremarkable to roll 1000 66s. Which is of course absurd.

On average, only 1 in 46656 experiments of rolling two dice 3 times will turn up a 66 66 66. Rolling two dice 3 times is a very different experiment than waiting for 66 66 to turn up and then looking for another 66 (which is effectively the same experiment as rolling a single pair of dice). Thus (C)'s error, just like (A)'s, is to compare probabilities from the sample space for a single roll with probabilities from a sample space which contains sequences of many (here: three) rolls.

It should be noted that with regard to backgammon, the number 1/46656 has little or no bearing. To calculate the probability of rolling 66 66 66 within, for example, a match of 120 rolls is technically much more complicated than the calculation of powers of 1/36 [2].

---

[1] This is not a mathematical argument but an assumption about the dice, without which no mathematical argument would be possible.

[2] To obviate the most likely mistake one can make here: It is not correct to split the 120 rolls into 40 blocks of 3 rolls and use 1/46656 on each of those.

[3] This does not mean that after a surplus of 66s has occured, the rate of 66s needs to go below 1 in 36 for a while. After rolling 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 I may continue to roll further 66s at a rate of no less than 1 in 36, and the average number of 66s will nevertheless converge to 1/36 overall. (Because the surplus becomes less significant with more and more rolls being executed.)

[PersianLord]

Well, pck has explained the mathematical basis for discrediting the repugnant dice-whining scenes in shouts. Cheers!

But I think the main reason for a certain fibster to whine about dice is psychological, not ignorance of mathematics and probability. If a person is grown and mature enough just to understand that BG is a game of BOTH luck and skill AND recognize it just as a game, and not a power show to impress others or a tool to protect/improve his/her public self-image, then s/he will rarely resort to dice-whining at all, even if s/he doesn't know the detailed analysis of probability theory.

Regards,

PL

[pck]

Well, pck has explained the mathematical basis for discrediting the repugnant dice-whining scenes in shouts. Cheers!

But that's not what I've done at all. This thread is concerned with debunking pseudo-mathematical arguments which pretend to be good reasons against dice whining, but in fact aren't. It's called "Dicewhining and how not to counter it". It's all about the "not" (with the exception of (A) in my previous post). Which of course doesn't mean that the dice whiners are right.

I gave what I believe to be two proper reasons against dice whining here:
http://www.fibsboard.com/general-chit-chat/the-old-dice-controversy/msg28762/#msg28762
Both pertain to luck, not to probabilities of rolls, luck being, as I've tried to argue there and here, the proper tool for examining accusations of unfair dice.

But I think the main reason for a certain fibster to whine about dice is psychological, not ignorance of mathematics and probability.

I don't think that the psychology can or needs to be seperated from the math. Quite often they are entirely rationally linked. Anti-dicewhiners tend to claim that the dice whiners' errors are due to "perception". But to get clobbered in a 98% race position by your opponent rolling 55 66 66 55 is in fact very unlucky. That's not perception deceiving you. You got robbed.

There is no error of perception involved in saying that finding a $100 bill on the sidewalk is a lucky event. It is also true that some event like that happening to you at some time over the course of your entire life is far less unlikely. So have you been lucky in finding those 100 bucks or not? Today, yes. With regard to you entire life, not so much. It depends on the perspective you take [1]. Now while the "long term/entire life" perspective may change your perception, it cannot invalidate the "short term/today" one. Both perspectives are valid, but incommensurable. Thus it is illegitimate to use one of them as an argument against the other. That's what I tried to point out in my previous posting, where both (A) and (C) make that mistake, rendering both sides of the dice whining debate confused and useless.

[1] Mathematically, this corresponds to the sample space you choose to describe your experiment.

If a person is grown and mature enough just to understand that BG is a game of BOTH luck and skill AND recognize it just as a game, and not a power show to impress others or a tool to protect/improve his/her public self-image, then s/he will rarely resort to dice-whining at all, even if s/he doesn't know the detailed analysis of probability theory.

I suppose then, that the countless times you shouted "#### your mother, FIBS" when you got unlucky were simply a part of your formative years. And that you came into maturity precisely at the time you lost shouts. A man's thirties can of course prove to be a bit of a challenge.

[KissMyAss]

Regardless of the futility of whining about the dice since such conversations fall on selectively deaf ears, there is one thing that this entire post fails to take into account. 

The dice are the "one ring that binds them all".  In other words, every player on FIBS has an opinion about the dice.  Some may correlate to your own, all well and good.  Others may differ from your perspective, that's fine too. 

From my point of view, I couldn't care less about how many people are online at any given moment, how many bots are listed on the server, how many players screen names start with a particular letter, how pointy the markings on the board are and make me think they are daggers out to kill my poor innocent men as they slide round the board on their asses  *shudders* .... but get me into a conversation about the dice, and I can hold a discussion on my opinions, listen to yours, and we can generally chat for a good ten minutes or so.  Which can then lead off into other topics, and soon we discover we have a new friend!  This can occur with anyone on my friends list, or a complete random stranger I've never played before.   We all use the dice, we all have a different perspective on them. 

Perhaps its time we all took a step back from ourselves, and realised that dice themselves are not evil, and are not out to get us.  We are not that important to painted pieces of plastic (or images on a screen) who have no feelings or emotions.  Whether they be computer generated, or those you can physically touch, dice have been around for centuries, not just in backgammon, but in many other board games, which I'm sure many of you grew up with.  In my day.... we also raided the board games in the house for dice, to play our own invented drinking games with.  We have grown up with dice, we have embraced dice for years as part of our lives, we all have that connection when playing a game like backgammon.   Sure some may whine about them, others may just laugh and accept their fate in a particular game, and look forward to the one where they have epic rolls and boost their rating. 

If people want to whine, let 'em I say.  It doesn't need to start a whole big war on why that person is wrong in their opinions.  We can just say to the person, "I sympathise with your current bad run of things, I was in that situation last week.  It passes, and things do get better."   Sure, learning the technicalities of the game will help you get a better rating, and possibly improve your "luck factor".  But when you make your moves by a book, where has the fun gone?   Where is the enjoyment of playing the game?   Socialising with the player on the other side of the screen from you?  If its all about luck and roll frequency, then it becomes dull and educational.   And ya know KMA doesn't play that sh**! 

And I can hear you inhale, preparing to say that while I don't hold with the educational aspect of it, a lot of you out there do, and research the game extensively in order to play better and increase your skill levels.  Good for you, no problem with that whatsoever.  Just accept too, that not all of us are fully focused on improving to the point where the technicalities take over the fun.

For my two cents worth, lighten up!  All you "high rated", high falluting big shots out there who are better than all the rest of us and refuse to play anyone lower rated, get over yourselves, and remember what it's like to play with a friend, and chat about random sh**, and enjoy a laugh or two.   You might just find that FIBS is a great place to be, full of diverse and interesting people.  My tells are always open for people to say howdy, I'm not easily offended, I will answer anything you put to me honestly (or cheat my ass off and use google)  and who knows... I may just brighten up an otherwise shitty day for you.   

Do you get that from your dice?

[pck]

And I can hear you inhale, preparing to say that while I don't hold with the educational aspect of it, a lot of you out there do, and research the game extensively in order to play better and increase your skill levels.  Good for you, no problem with that whatsoever.  Just accept too, that not all of us are fully focused on improving to the point where the technicalities take over the fun.

You really don't have to feel threatened by the technical crap in this thread. Just ignore it, everybody else does, too.

Anybody who makes any demands on you to improve your game beyond the point where you can be bothered is an idiot. Ignore them too. (Just wondering why you bring this up here, since nobody who posted in this thread did anything like that.)

For my two cents worth, lighten up!  All you "high rated", high falluting big shots out there who are better than all the rest of us and refuse to play anyone lower rated, get over yourselves, and remember what it's like to play with a friend, and chat about random sh**, and enjoy a laugh or two.

If it's any consolation, my private conversations with jackdaddy are so low brow you can count yourself lucky I'm not explaining relativity theory here to compensate.

You might just find that FIBS is a great place to be, full of diverse and interesting people.  My tells are always open for people to say howdy, I'm not easily offended, I will answer anything you put to me honestly (or cheat my ass off and use google)  and who knows... I may just brighten up an otherwise shitty day for you.   

Do you get that from your dice?

If you put it like that, I'll take a lucky 66 over weird, out-of-the-blue life coaching any day. (That's a joke. But it's also true.)

[PersianLord]

I suppose then, that the countless times you shouted "#### your mother, FIBS" when you got unlucky were simply a part of your formative years. And that you came into maturity precisely at the time you lost shouts. A man's thirties can of course prove to be a bit of a challenge.

That is true. Losing shouts helped me realize that how childish was my behavior to whine against dice. Since I wasn't able to shout & whine ( i.e. to project my anger over 'bad luck' (?!) outwards), gradually I realized that I have to either accept the dice the way it is or just to stop playing and abusing myself. I chose the first choice.

PL