> I play the one that comes with Windows (ME and XP), and way too often do
> "miracle rolls" appear when I'm creaming my opponent (which is often).
Hardly a day goes by without someone dropping by this newsgroup claiming
that BOT_X cheats. Yet, no one has ever provided any evidence that
stands up to analysis.
Until you provide some actual numbers showing that the "miracle rolls"
happen more often than probability would predict, the answer you're
going to get is NO.
Probability is a funny thing. That one-in-nine roll that completely
reverses the game happens about 11% of the time. Big swings in equity
is normal, usual, and part of the game. Get used to it.
After playing a huge amount of backgammon, including hundreds of long
matches (9 pt.s or more), my impression is that Walt is correct.
There is a much smaller level of skill operative in backgammon than
most beginners can imagine, as well as more luck than it appears there
should be. As it stands now, you either like the backgammon
experience or you do not. I've been playing less lately, because I
find that the experience is too predictable - only the "crazy dice"
are not.
>After playing a huge amount of backgammon, including hundreds of long
>matches (9 pt.s or more), my impression is that Walt is correct.
Monty has done a complete 180. It was not long ago that he was
accusing nearly every on line backgammon site of manipulating the
dice. He called xcitinggames.com a "joke site" because of the "bouncy"
dice. He actually even accused the open source computer program "gnu"
of being rigged.
His reversal of opinion is likely due to his recent run of very good
luck in which he "tripled" his money.
>There is a much smaller level of skill operative in backgammon than
>most beginners can imagine, as well as more luck than it appears there
>should be.
Actually there is a very high level of skill operative in backgammon.
Playing at the expert level requires much study. It is true that luck
plays a very large role in the game.
Backgammon is basically a gambling game. You can make a lot of money
from those who think it is all luck.
> As it stands now, you either like the backgammon
>experience or you do not. I've been playing less lately, because I
>find that the experience is too predictable - only the "crazy dice"
>are not.
But this will not stop Monty from endlessly posting here about his bad
luck and how backgammon should change its rules to suit *him*.
Monty is in a no win situation. He gave up chess because he was not
good enough to beat the masters of the game.
He takes up backgammon since even an average player like him can beat
a player of world class ability. But alas, the abject patzer can beat
Monty with a bit of good luck.
Actually, I've had some very bad backgammon luck lately, losing to
many really weak players. I'm still up about triple on that account,
but since tripling, I've played a lot of matches and lost several
Euros. I think the experiment I did a few weeks back sums things up:
I played GNUBG in a series of 9 pt. matches. Using my luck analysis
adjusted format, GNUBG would've done very well, but with no
adjustments, I won nearly half the matches. My good luck/GNUBG's bad
luck compensated (apparently) for the significant skill advantage
GNUBG evaluated itself as having. The way it seems to work is that
you have to wait for a run of good luck, during which time you win
many matches 9-2, 10-1, etc., and then when you have the run of really
bad luck, you lose quite a few 8-9 7-10, etc. If you have a big skill
edge, you will do well against weak or mediocre opponents, but you
have to play a very large number of matches before this is likely to
occur.
As to previous claims, I always stated that I was simply expression my
impressions. In science, you investigate based upon your impressions
or "hunches" quite often. One major difference between scientists and
others is that scientists will abandon their impressions if they
appear to be inaccurate. I still do not know if a site is "rigged" or
not. And I still find GNUBG's rolls to be quite suspicious, in that
after having GNUBG replay a roll that led to a big equity swing in
GNUBG's favor (clearly a "joker"), it is so often the case that yet
another joker is rolled (or the exact same roll). I don't really
care, because it's an excellent learning tool, and I wouldn't play it
for money (unless someone else wanted to "bankroll" the event, meaning
that the most I could lose is some time).
>As to previous claims, I always stated that I was simply expression my
>impressions.
Indeed. And my impression is that you suffer from pathologic
narcissism. Sorry to belabor the obvious.
> In science, you investigate based upon your impressions
>or "hunches" quite often.
This is true. However you never accumulated data to test out your
impressions. All you did was continue to assert your relative
certainty that xcitinggames.com was manipulating their dice and you
classified their site as a "joke" site.
> One major difference between scientists and
>others is that scientists will abandon their impressions if they
>appear to be inaccurate.
"Appear" to be inaccurate? Actually they abandon their impressions
after testing them out with real data, something you never did.
Appearances can be deceiving.
> I still do not know if a site is "rigged" or
>not.
Of course you don't. You never collected enough data to test. All you
do is guess about numbers of games and wins and how you play and then
come to conclusions, I am sorry "impressions". Well Monty, your
impressions are completely worthless especially with respect to
thinking a site is rigging the dice. It is based upon selective
perception and the rage you experience when someone who you think is
inferior to you, beats you.
>And I still find GNUBG's rolls to be quite suspicious, in that
>after having GNUBG replay a roll that led to a big equity swing in
>GNUBG's favor (clearly a "joker"), it is so often the case that yet
>another joker is rolled (or the exact same roll).
"So often the case"? What does that mean? Is that your impression?
Would you care to act like a real scientist and start collecting data
to either support or reject your impression?
> I don't really
>care, because it's an excellent learning tool
Why do you think it is an excellent learing tool? How on earth do you
know if the moves it suggests are accurate and whether the rollouts
can be trusted?
I mean if you cannot trust it to roll properly, why trust it to
analyze accurately?
>, and I wouldn't play it
>for money (unless someone else wanted to "bankroll" the event, meaning
>that the most I could lose is some time).
I am sure you will get a lot of takers there Monty
In any case, why play it for money? It cheats. Or at least that is
your "impression".
For those who read these posts (the ones with the long, continual, and
redundant Rich rants), I'll just point out here that this last Rich
post is an excellent example of why I stop responding after a post or
two. To untangle this muddled batch of nonsense is simply not worth
the time, especially when it will certainly spawn another such post by
Rich. I will, however, repeat a point I made at least once in the
past, and that is that I'm more than willing to debate the issue of
how one would go about validating a claim about "rigged" dice software
by examining a large number of matches, if it was a formal
(structured), moderated debate (with both sides agreeing on who the
moderator would be. Short of that, readers simply get exposed to
these somewhat amusing (the first few times you read them, that is)
but ultimately bizarre posts. They do keep me amused, I have to
admit, because they demonstrate how those who call others insane (or
the like) are usually the ones who are in need of the most
psychological assistance.
>I will, however, repeat a point I made at least once in the
>past, and that is that I'm more than willing to debate the issue of
>how one would go about validating a claim about "rigged" dice software
>by examining a large number of matches, if it was a formal
>(structured), moderated debate (with both sides agreeing on who the
>moderator would be.
What is there to debate? In order to validate a claim one must specify
what the claim is and then collect enough data to test the claim. Your
"impression" is that the dice on xcitinggames.com is rigged. First you
must define "rigged" and then you must start to collect data from a
random sample of games and do a statistical analysis of the data.
The problem with Monty is that all he does is give "impressions" which
are worthless. He calls them simple impressions and yet if you read
what he is asserting, you find that he has expressed a high degree of
confidence that the on line sites including gnu software are rigged.
And despite several individuals telling Monty what he needs to do to
prove his claim, he just continues to whine about his bad luck. Of
course then when he gets good luck, he atttributes his success to his
style of play.
And then he comes up with a lame excuse about needing a moderator in
order for him to "debate".
On Mar 6, 1:16 am, monty1...@lycos.com wrote:
> For those who read these posts (the ones with the long, continual, and
> redundant Rich rants), I'll just point out here that this last Rich
> post is an excellent example of why I stop responding after a post or
> two. To untangle this muddled batch of nonsense is simply not worth
> the time, especially when it will certainly spawn another such post by
> Rich. I will, however, repeat a point I made at least once in the
> past, and that is that I'm more than willing to debate the issue of
> how one would go about validating a claim about "rigged" dice software
> by examining a large number of matches, if it was a formal
> (structured), moderated debate (with both sides agreeing on who the
> moderator would be. Short of that, readers simply get exposed to
> these somewhat amusing (the first few times you read them, that is)
> but ultimately bizarre posts. They do keep me amused, I have to
> admit, because they demonstrate how those who call others insane (or
> the like) are usually the ones who are in need of the most
> psychological assistance.
If only there were some field of study, where people took large sets
of data and found some way to objectively quantify trends in them.
Perhaps then we could use these methods to make determinations and
confirm or deny hypotheses about said sets. In such a world it might
be possible to independently collect data and investigate one's
hunches experimentally, only then present one's findings...Alas, in
want of such a thing I guess moderated dialogue and thought exercise
is truly the proper way to go.
GamesForum.Ca is an Online Community of gaming enthusiasts joining together in order to better themselves in the field of gaming.
Together with Gamers we strive to produce solutions to your problems, discuss various strategies and further our personal knowledge by learning from fellow players.
We strive to bring you the latest gaming news and information and everything else related to gaming.
Linear Mode
