Just played my last game at (yuk!) Netgammon
Onionhead
I have always loved Netgammon in every respect, except for the crazy
dice. No matter what ANYBODY says, the dice are NOT random. Nobody can
repeat the same pattern of great winning and losing streaks so many
times with random dice. Unless I had a mini stroke or something, I
just don't see how I can go from nearly unbeatable to 2 and 20
overnight! - AGAIN!
Actually, the stroke explanation doesn't even work, because this has
happened over and over. I thought things might be better with the new
software, but the extremes seem greater now.
It's a real shame that, for reasons beyond my comprehension, they
CHOOSE to keep the dice fixed.
Please, don't even try to debate this issue anymore. It is a FACT that
the dice there are not random. I don't know why, so don't ask me. I
don't know HOW they have them fixed to do what they do, so don't ask
me that either. I DO know that other people have told me about their
similar experiences. Too many for this to be a coincidence.
Sure, I love to win, but I can accept a fair defeat. At present,
neither victory nor defeat is fair at Netgammon. All I'd like to do is
to be able to play fair matches, and to be able to get some real idea
of how good a player I am. At this point, that's impossible, and I
regret subscribing. I guess all I (we) can hope for is a change in
policy there.
Kenny Lee Smith
Onionhead <jgr...@nowhere.com> wrote in article
<3502154c....@news.supernews.com>...
> I have always loved Netgammon in every respect, except for the crazy
> dice. No matter what ANYBODY says, the dice are NOT random. Nobody can
> repeat the same pattern of great winning and losing streaks so many
> times with random dice. Unless I had a mini stroke or something, I
> just don't see how I can go from nearly unbeatable to 2 and 20
> overnight! - AGAIN!
I share your opinion on both Netgammon and Games Grid. The dice are
bizarre!
Why they continue doing this is beyond me also. I hardly ever play at
either
one anymore because it messes me up for real dice play.
I definitely am not renewing at either one.
--
Kenny Lee Smith <kl...@premiernet.net>
John Goodwin
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 04:11:50 GMT, jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead)
wrote:
>I have always loved Netgammon in every respect, except for the crazy
>dice. No matter what ANYBODY says, the dice are NOT random. Nobody can
>repeat the same pattern of great winning and losing streaks so many
>times with random dice. Unless I had a mini stroke or something, I
>just don't see how I can go from nearly unbeatable to 2 and 20
>overnight! - AGAIN!
>
>Actually, the stroke explanation doesn't even work, because this has
>happened over and over. I thought things might be better with the new
>software, but the extremes seem greater now.
>
>It's a real shame that, for reasons beyond my comprehension, they
>CHOOSE to keep the dice fixed.
>
>Please, don't even try to debate this issue anymore. It is a FACT that
>the dice there are not random. I don't know why, so don't ask me. I
>don't know HOW they have them fixed to do what they do, so don't ask
>me that either. I DO know that other people have told me about their
>similar experiences. Too many for this to be a coincidence.
>
>Sure, I love to win, but I can accept a fair defeat. At present,
>neither victory nor defeat is fair at Netgammon. All I'd like to do is
>to be able to play fair matches, and to be able to get some real idea
>of how good a player I am. At this point, that's impossible, and I
>regret subscribing. I guess all I (we) can hope for is a change in
>policy there.
>
This allegation has been made here before, in particular, the win
streak/lose streak syndrome.
What no Netgammon player seems to have done is actually ask for a
response from the organisers (only hearsay has been published here as
far as I am aware). It would be most useful if one of their
disgruntled customers put the accusation to them, and reported their
response (or lack thereof).
It would be also be instructive if two Netgammon players, one who
believed he was on a winning streak, and one who believed he was on a
losing streak, could play some games where the winning streak player
tried to throw each game.
If Netgammon is 'cheating' in the way asserted, the resulting games
would should make it obvious.
The only motive put forward by those claiming unfair dice at NetGammon
is that they are rigging the matches to make sure that everyone wins a
share and loses a share.
If you play devil's advocate for a moment, and try to work out how you
would implement such a scheme, you will discover that it is a very
tall order, and would, in any case, not yield streaks as have been
described. (assuming NetGammon is not able to dictate who plays whom).
J.G.
Stephen Hubbard
jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead) wrote:
<snip woeful "tale of two dice">
Why don't you try FIBS? If you decide the dice are fixed there also,
at least you have some small solace that you didn't have to pay for
the service.
;)
--
Remove the (x)s to reply
Stephen Hubbard
xxxthe...@mindspring.com
Marie1948
><snip woeful "tale of two dice">
>
>
Did you people ever stop to consider it's not the dice rolls
that determine who wins or loses, but the MOVES you make
with the rolls you get?
You can take 2 people, a novice and a master, give them the
same rolls and I'm sure they will make different moves with
those rolls.
Stop blaming the dice and start considering the real reason a
person wins or loses a game.
HOW THEY MOVE with the rolls they get.
~ end of my 2 cents ~
Onionhead
>
>This allegation has been made here before, in particular, the win
>streak/lose streak syndrome.
>
>What no Netgammon player seems to have done is actually ask for a
>response from the organisers (only hearsay has been published here as
>far as I am aware). It would be most useful if one of their
>disgruntled customers put the accusation to them, and reported their
>response (or lack thereof).
>
I did write to them last year, and they claimed the dice were random.
I did not bother to reply. I have no facts, just observations, so
that's all I can present.
>It would be also be instructive if two Netgammon players, one who
>believed he was on a winning streak, and one who believed he was on a
>losing streak, could play some games where the winning streak player
>tried to throw each game.
>
That's a great idea! If anybody wants to do that with me, I'd love to
try it. Send e-mail to jma...@enteract.com, and we can set up a time.
I am on a major losing streak, so it would have to be a "winner".
>If Netgammon is 'cheating' in the way asserted, the resulting games
>would should make it obvious.
>
>The only motive put forward by those claiming unfair dice at NetGammon
>is that they are rigging the matches to make sure that everyone wins a
>share and loses a share.
>
>If you play devil's advocate for a moment, and try to work out how you
>would implement such a scheme, you will discover that it is a very
>tall order, and would, in any case, not yield streaks as have been
>described. (assuming NetGammon is not able to dictate who plays whom).
Like I said in my original post, don't ask me how or why this is
happening. I don't have an answer for either. The only thing I KNOW is
that ever since Netgammon started I have had MANY and almost CONSTANT
huge winning and losing streaks. That's what I KNOW. I have also
HEARD many other people here and on Netgammon state similar
situations. Playing devil's advocate is fine, and I agree with your
last paragraph - it would be a very tall order for them to do this.
On the other hand, if Netgammon is not doing this, what IS the
explanation for it? Something psychological on all our parts? I can't
say absolutely no, but come on...
Just to be a little more specific... When Netgammon was free, I would
occasionally start over with a new user name. I did this maybe 6
times. The same pattern would happen EVERY TIME. I would shoot up to
about 1750 - 1800 in elo. Then I would drop down to the low 1600s very
quickly. Then the winning and losing streaks would begin. This would
happen EVERY TIME. It drove me nuts, so I quit playing for a few
months.
Then I heard that they released version 4 of the software. The biggest
change (and this is according to them), is in the way the dice are
thrown. Somebody(s) had found a way to predict the rolls in advance.
Now, they say, they can change the system at any time, which would
prevent any further predictions. Fine. I started playing, and shot WAY
up. I was in heaven I was winning almost all my matches, and could do
no wrong. This went on for a LONG time. Then several days ago, they
made an announcement that they had caught some high ranking people
cheating, and had sanctioned them. Since then, I'm about 4 - 40 in my
matched. I don't know it's just coincidence, or of the two events are
related. Anyway, that's my history at Netgammon.
>
>J.G.
>
>
Kenny Lee Smith
Onionhead <jgr...@nowhere.com> wrote in article
<3502ad6...@news.supernews.com>...
> On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 09:28:59 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
> Goodwin) wrote:
>
> Like I said in my original post, don't ask me how or why this is
> happening. I don't have an answer for either. The only thing I KNOW is
> that ever since Netgammon started I have had MANY and almost CONSTANT
> huge winning and losing streaks. That's what I KNOW. I have also
> HEARD many other people here and on Netgammon state similar
> situations. Playing devil's advocate is fine, and I agree with your
> last paragraph - it would be a very tall order for them to do this.
> On the other hand, if Netgammon is not doing this, what IS the
> explanation for it? Something psychological on all our parts? I can't
> say absolutely no, but come on...
I was told that the reason that both Netgammon and Games Grid rig the
games in the manner you describe is to keep people playing longer.
That is, if you have attained a high rating and you start to lose it you
will
keep playing until you regain it.
This explanation is of course not verifiable but it is the one that makes
sense to me.
Donald Kahn
>
>Then I heard that they released version 4 of the software. The biggest
>change (and this is according to them), is in the way the dice are
>thrown. Somebody(s) had found a way to predict the rolls in advance.
>Now, they say, they can change the system at any time, which would
>prevent any further predictions. Fine. I started playing, and shot WAY
>up. I was in heaven I was winning almost all my matches, and could do
>no wrong. This went on for a LONG time. Then several days ago, they
>made an announcement that they had caught some high ranking people
>cheating, and had sanctioned them. Since then, I'm about 4 - 40 in my
>matched. I don't know it's just coincidence, or of the two events are
>related. Anyway, that's my history at Netgammon.
>>
>>J.G.
>>
>>
deekay
Rodrigo Andrade
> ~ end of my 2 cents ~
Stick'em up in your ass, and listen!!!
I can't say anything about Netgammon, but I suspect the dice ARE biased
on GG. Like Kenny said, they'll let you raise your rating, then drop it,
so you'll work hard to get it back up. OR they will give you a whole
bunch of good rolls, then a whole bunch of bad rolls (namely 52, 21, and
I don't think there's anything worse than that), so you'll be happy w/
your win/loss share and will keep playing (and paying).
In GG, I started off well, my rating rose from 1500 to the 1700's, now
I'm losing match after match, and my rating is dropping to the 1200's.
If you're half as good as you say you are, Marie, why don't you get your
hands on REAL, UNBIASED dice and play, huh???
Let's all keep in mind that backgammon is GAMBLING, it DOES take a small
percentage of luck to win.
Rodrigo
Rodrigo Andrade
Yeah, but sometimes you just begin to wonder how random the dice are.
I'm very skeptical about Games Grid. I had a BIG luck streak in the 1st
week there, but now my rating is dropping. It rose from 1500 to the
1700's, now it's dropping to around 1200.
Rodrigo
Crashh
Marie1948 wrote in message
<19980308134...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>~ end of my 2 cents ~
Do you mean you have to move considering ALL possible rolls and
combinations?
Hmm........I think you're on to something. :-)
Marie1948
>If you're half as good as you say you are, Marie, why don't you get your
>hands on REAL, UNBIASED dice and play, huh???
HUH?
I *NEVER* said I was good.
Matter of fact, I suck.
Geez, get the facts straight.
Tom Vavasour
in reply to jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead)
>the dice there are not random. I don't know why, so don't ask me. I
>don't know HOW they have them fixed to do what they do, so don't ask
>me that either. I DO know that other people have told me about their
>similar experiences. Too many for this to be a coincidence.
I'm not going to try and argue with you on this but I do have some
questions.
How difficult would it be to programme a dice generator to take
account of the match position when rolling dice?
Wouldn't this involve teaching it to play bg, and then telling it to
produce certain dice for each player.
What would be the motive for doing this?
Who would gain from a biased generator?
If the dice are randomly biased. ie the rolls don't follow the same
distribution as a truly random set, but don't favour one player or
another specifically, why would this make any difference to the
win/loss ratio's?
IMO, we play far more games of BG online than we ever managed face to
face, so we have more opportunity to see patterns.
I restarted playing at FIBS after a break of 6 mths or so. On my
return I won 12 matches straight. "Woohoo" I thought to myself, you've
still got it old boy. Then I lost 13 straight immediately afterwards.
Now I have two theories. Someone on the BG sever is taking the time to
specifically programme the computer to manipulate my win/loss record,
for no gain, with extreme difficulty, or ...streaks happen. Guess
which option I choose. I lost the final of a tourney once to 7
doubles in a row. RIGGED.. yeah right...shit happens
...Tom
====================
"Better at" doesn't equal "Better than"
======================
Ernst M. Morak
kl...@premiernet.net,Unet1 wrote at 10:29 on 08.03.98
to rec.games.backgammon about "Re: Just played my last game at (yuk!)
Netgammon":
-----------------------------
>I share your opinion on both Netgammon and Games Grid. The dice are
>bizarre!
(Though
points dont always tell everything)
bye Ernst
-----------------------------
Ernst MORAK
Country: Austria
City: Graz
e.m...@magnet.at
--- OffRoad 1.9x registered to Ernst Morak
Phil Luck
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 18:16:50 GMT, don...@easynet.co.uk (Donald Kahn)
wrote:
In case anyone should think that I wrote the main paragraph above, I
didn't.
Donald seems to have accidentally removed the "xxxx wrote" from the
top of his post, and then accidentally left my signature in place.
Just a simple accident I'm sure, but the above paragraph was in fact
written by "onionhead".
J.G.
intn...@aol.com
I heard a similar complaint about FIBS last night from a (higher-ranking)
player who was losing our match ... I certainly have felt that Netgammon
dice were DIFFERENT from the dice on FIBS, and have indulged the urge to
blame them for my hot and cold streaks. But I have the same streaks on FIBS,
and I suspect that if I played much over a real table with real dice the
same thing would happen. The most telling argument against the "bad
algorithm" theory for me is that there is really no such thing as "good"
rolls and "bad" rolls ... what rolls are good and bad depends mostly on the
board situation at any given time. It is hard for me to imagine how any
built-in lack of randomness could (a) consistently result in the wrong roll
at the wrong time AND (b) do so only for one of the two players, following
that player from match to match. No, there are only two explanations that I
have found plausible. The first and more plausible is that there are Dice
Gods whose sole mission in life is to make backgammon players miserable, and
who have the power to alter the course of electrons flowing through computer
circuits in such a way as to cause me to throw exactly the wrong thing, and
my opponent to throw exactly the right thing, game after game as my rating
threatens to reach the level to which I am rightfully entitled. The second,
and relatively unlikely explanation, is that there is no malevolent force
involved, and that my random walk through backgammonland is no different from
my path through life itself ... pushed hither and yon by impersonal forces
acting according to natural law, but generally winding up approximately where
I began ... alanback
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Onionhead
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:09:47 +0100, e.m...@magnet.at (Ernst M. Morak)
wrote:
>kl...@premiernet.net,Unet1 wrote at 10:29 on 08.03.98 =20
>to rec.games.backgammon about "Re: Just played my last game at (yuk!)=20
>Netgammon":=20
>-----------------------------=20
>=20
>>I share your opinion on both Netgammon and Games Grid. The dice are=20
>>bizarre!=20
>=20
>I would very much like to know how much ELO points both of U had.=20
>(Though =20
>points dont always tell everything)=20
>bye Ernst=20
>-----------------------------=20
>Ernst MORAK=20
>Country: Austria=20
>City: Graz=20
>e.m...@magnet.at=20
>=20
>--- OffRoad 1.9x registered to Ernst Morak=20
My elo is usually in the high 1600s. Recently it was as high as 1813.
It has dropped back down to about 1740.
I'm not saying that the funny dice have hurt my elo. They may have
helped it overall. I don't know - and that's the point - because of
the screwy dice, that rating is meaningless.
I'm not complaining about losing. Losing has nothing to do with this.
I'm complaining about the non-random dice at Netgammon. I don't want
to win 15 matches in a row if it's not fair, and I don't want to lose
15 in a row unfairly either. I just want to play a * fair * game of
backgammon with other paople over the net. What's wrong with that?
Onionhead
On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 07:03:01 GMT, tom...@ihug.co.nz (Tom Vavasour)
wrote:
>in reply to jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead)
>>Please, don't even try to debate this issue anymore. It is a FACT that
>>the dice there are not random. I don't know why, so don't ask me. I
>>don't know HOW they have them fixed to do what they do, so don't ask
>>me that either. I DO know that other people have told me about their
>>similar experiences. Too many for this to be a coincidence.
>
>I'm not going to try and argue with you on this but I do have some
>questions.
>
>How difficult would it be to programme a dice generator to take
>account of the match position when rolling dice?
>
>Wouldn't this involve teaching it to play bg, and then telling it to
>produce certain dice for each player.
>
>What would be the motive for doing this?
>
>Who would gain from a biased generator?
>
>If the dice are randomly biased. ie the rolls don't follow the same
>distribution as a truly random set, but don't favour one player or
>another specifically, why would this make any difference to the
>win/loss ratio's?
As I said, I don't have any answers to the other questions about
motive, method, and so on, but as for the last paragraph...
Please understand that I am not complaining about losing. The dice may
actually be helping me overall. Who knows? I have trendous winning
streaks along with tremendous losing streaks. The point is that if the
dice are not random, then the game is not really backgammon. When the
dice are not random, they may still be even for both players, but
since neither of us know the "rules" they follow, it is impossible to
make moves based on any kind of probability. Obviously, that's a major
part of backgammon!
All I'm saying is that win or lose, I would like to play fair matches
on Netgammon. What is wrong with that? I paid to play backgammon
there, and in my very strong opinion, that's not what is being played
there.
Onionhead
>>
>>Then I heard that they released version 4 of the software. The biggest
>>change (and this is according to them), is in the way the dice are
>>thrown. Somebody(s) had found a way to predict the rolls in advance.
>>Now, they say, they can change the system at any time, which would
>>prevent any further predictions. Fine. I started playing, and shot WAY
>>up. I was in heaven I was winning almost all my matches, and could do
>>no wrong. This went on for a LONG time. Then several days ago, they
>>made an announcement that they had caught some high ranking people
>>cheating, and had sanctioned them. Since then, I'm about 4 - 40 in my
>>matched. I don't know it's just coincidence, or of the two events are
>>related. Anyway, that's my history at Netgammon.
>>>
>>>J.G.
>>>
>>>
>Obvious, isn't it? They are doing it just to annoy you.
>
>deekay
I don't know WHAT their motive is, but I do know that many other
paople have experienced the same problem. It's not just me. What is
wrong with wanting to be able to play a fair game of backgammon on a
server I have paid to use? I'm not complaining about losing. I'm
complaining about biased dice. Whether they help me or hurt me, I
don't want them. Ruins the whole game - lose, OR win.
Paul Ferguson
In article <350391f2...@newsch.es.co.nz> Tom Vavasour,
tom...@ihug.co.nz writes:
>How difficult would it be to programme a dice generator to take
>account of the match position when rolling dice?
>
>Wouldn't this involve teaching it to play bg, and then telling it to
>produce certain dice for each player.
>
Actually, I can think of a number of ways to "rig" the dice without
having to implement a complete backgammon playing algorithm.
Let's say the server figures player X has had a hot streak and
needs to lose a few games for humility sake. The server could
once every several moves apply changes like:
(1) If X rolls doubles, roll again until it is not doubles.
(2) If there is a roll that prevents X from moving, choose that roll
(e.g. X is on the bar).
(3) If a roll allows X to hit his opponent, roll a different roll.
Conversely, if there is a roll that hits X, give that roll to
his opponent.
(4) If X is behind in a running game, roll low numbers (1/2 or 2/3)
for him and/or roll doubles or high numbers for his opponent.
I'm sure you can think of many other options, which would be simple
to implement and require little or no knowledge of backgammon
play.
//fergy
Tom Vavasour
in reply to Paul Ferguson <fe...@nospam.com>
>to implement and require little or no knowledge of backgammon
>play.
OK...fine..marvelously simple for a busy programmer who has got
nothing better to do than piss off the people who provide the income
stream.
Try playing Jellyfish. You always end up sure that the bastard is
rigged. But why. Why bias a game that someone wants to give you money
for.
I'm sure all you guys believe in project 51 and think the X- files s a
documentary. The reason most of you think the dice are rigged is the
same reason people go to clairvoyants and astrologers
Kenny Lee Smith
>
> I don't know WHAT their motive is, but I do know that many other
> people have experienced the same problem. It's not just me. What is
> wrong with wanting to be able to play a fair game of backgammon on a
> server I have paid to use? I'm not complaining about losing. I'm
> complaining about biased dice. Whether they help me or hurt me, I
> don't want them. Ruins the whole game - lose, OR win.
Fair dice are bad for business, biased dice are good for business.
That's their motive.
The motive that makes sense to me is that both services want to keep
people playing more. Just like TV networks want better ratings and more
people watching their networks, and magazines want more subscribers.
If the dice were unbiased then a few players would have high ratings and
everyone else would have low ratings just like in real life.
The vast majority with low ratings would become frustrated and quit the
service.
The few with high ratings would become bored and quit.
In other words, the services are programmed to generate an even spread of
winners and losers and more play, which equals more income in membership
fees.
The better players will play more to try and regain their ratings and the
lesser
players will play more because they are winning against better players.
This fits the scenario described by everyone, which is, "I started playing
and
won till my rating reached a certain point then I started losing till my
rating
fell to a certain point, then I started winning again."
The main concern of both services at the end of the day is to add
memberships
and keep more people playing, therefore putting more money in their pocket.
Their main concern is not fair dice.
Kit Woolsey
Kenny Lee Smith (kl...@premiernet.net) wrote:
: The main concern of both services at the end of the day is to add
: memberships
: and keep more people playing, therefore putting more money in their pocket.
: Their main concern is not fair dice.
Oh get serious. Suppose you were operating a backgammon server for
profit. Would you really introduce biased dice, knowing that if the
public suspected that the dice weren't random the credibility of your
server would shrink to zero along with the membership? No Way! The
profit motive of the services is the best argument for the
operators making as sure as possible that the dice are unbiased.
Kit
Kenny Lee Smith
Kit Woolsey <kwoo...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<kwoolseyE...@netcom.com>...
>
>
> Oh get serious. Suppose you were operating a backgammon server for
> profit. Would you really introduce biased dice, knowing that if the
> public suspected that the dice weren't random the credibility of your
> server would shrink to zero along with the membership? No Way! The
> profit motive of the services is the best argument for the
> operators making as sure as possible that the dice are unbiased.
Exciting play is what keeps the masses coming in. Nothing more
exciting than hitting those long shots! Saving a game that was lost.
Turning back that double you shouldn't have taken.
Fair dice play would be just like real life. Players that aren't very good
would continue to lose and quit the service...or never sign up in the
first place. Good players would continually win and eventually get
bored. That's the way it works in real life. If you are playing
someone that continually loses money to you, will he keep
playing? No. He will quit or find someone that he can beat to play.
In the town I live in I used to have a lot of people I would play
backgammon
with. They got tired of losing their money to me and won't play me
anymore.
It's just me and one other guy that I have a hard time beating and we
stay pretty even.
Now if you believe the dice on Games Grid and Netgammon are like real
life, then nothing anyone says will change your mind. Just a bunch
of losers complaining about bad dice. If you believe that the services
dice are rigged, as I do, then this is the motive that makes sense.
See you at the Online Casino's my friend. :-)
Kevin Bastian
LOL!
I'll bet you set Kit straight! ;-)
Kenny Lee Smith <kl...@premiernet.net> wrote in article
<01bd4bbc$f9a1b060$32e0e5cd@vogmudet>...
Daniel Murphy
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 15:07:20 GMT, jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead) wrote
about his experience with winning and losing streaks on Netgammon:
>I have no facts, just observations, so that's all I can present.
Fair enough. If you want to speculate about a server's dice, I don't
think that's at all useful without facts. But we can talk usefully
about observations -- if we can keep in mind what is and what is not a
fact.
>Like I said in my original post, don't ask me how or why this is
>happening. I don't have an answer for either. The only thing I KNOW is
>that ever since Netgammon started I have had MANY and almost CONSTANT
>huge winning and losing streaks. That's what I KNOW.
Well, here's what I know. In backgammon, winning and losing streaks
are normal, natural and expected. They happen to everyone who plays a
lot of backgammon on any internet server or in real life. They happen
to bad players, to average players, and to good players. They happen
to every frequent player I know.
I think they happen more often to average players. Bad players won't
have too many long winning streaks. Good players shouldn't have too
many long losing streaks. Average players seem most likely to benefit
from a streak of hot dice, or suffer from a streak of bad rolling.
Does that seem reasonable? I think so.
But consider this: On FIBS, where I play, even the best players see
their ratings go up and down by large amounts. Among these players,
swings of 100 or more points are not unusual. Swings of 200 or more
points are less usual but they still happen -- it happened to one of
the best players on FIBS!
Here's another -- perhaps better -- example. "yabe," a computer
program that always plays the same, hmmm, not great but above average
game, was rated 1900 two days ago and was back down to 1740 yesterday.
The bots play a lot, so they can win or lose a lot of points quickly
-- but that's a swing of 160 points in just two days' worth of 1-point
matches!
Now here's something else I've observed. Maybe others have observed
this too. There seems to be something about playing against a computer
or on an internet server that's different from playing in real life.
The unlucky rolls and losing streaks are more noticeable. They seem
to be more "impossible" -- and a whole lot more irritating!
I'm not sure why this is. Maybe because you see the result in your
rating after every match. Maybe because the dice are out of your
control. Maybe because the pace is faster. Everything -- including
those "miracle" rolls -- seems to happen so quickly. Maybe because a
lot of us play so much more on the internet than in real life.
Or maybe because -- and it's perfectly natural -- people tend to blame
their losing streaks on bad dice, and credit excellent play for their
winning streaks. But actually -- well, I see two possibilities.
What happens when you're losing?
One possibility is that you're such a good player that you don't let a
losing streak bother you. You keep playing your same good game, but
you're unlucky. Sooner or later, your luck turns around.
Another -- and to me more likely -- possibility is that you *do* let
your losing streak bother you. You blame the dice. You don't wonder if
perhaps you're not playing as well as you could. Or worse -- you start
questioning your own judgment. You become afraid to make the best
plays and cube decisions. You play worse when you're losing. As a
result, you lose more. Your losing streak lasts longer.
What happens when you're winning? You become more confident. You don't
play like you're afraid to lose. You make the right plays and the
right cube decisions. As a result (and come on, now, admit it --
you're a little lucky too, right?) you win more. Your winning streak
lasts longer.
If these observations of mine are useful to other backgammon players,
great. I know that thinking about them once in a while helps me play
better. So just one more thing -- in another post Onionhead wrote:
>Please, don't even try to debate this issue anymore. It is a FACT that
>the dice there are not random.
It doesn't seem to be a "fact" to me! It seems to be an observation
(and didn't Onionhead just say he didn't have any facts?). It would
certainly be an interesting fact, if it were a fact -- but you'll need
facts to prove it. And please, without any facts, there hardly seems
to be anything worth debating.
_______________________________________________
Daniel Murphy http://www.cityraccoon.com/
Anthony Patz
"Kenny Lee Smith" <kl...@premiernet.net> wrote:
>Fair dice play would be just like real life. Players that aren't very good
>would continue to lose and quit the service...or never sign up in the
>first place. Good players would continually win and eventually get
>bored.
You still need to show that less than random dice materially favour
the bad player. Provided neither player was aware of the nature of the
bias, they are still equal in luck, and given that they have to make a
decision based on best estimates of what is coming, skill will still
out.
Two wrongs dont make a right, but two Wrights do make an aeroplane.
(and three rights make a left)
Kenny Lee Smith
Anthony Patz <a...@aztec.co.za> wrote in article
<6e3fi9$7ec$1...@news01.iafrica.com>...
>
> You still need to show that less than random dice materially favour
> the bad player. Provided neither player was aware of the nature of the
> bias, they are still equal in luck, and given that they have to make a
> decision based on best estimates of what is coming, skill will still
> out.
The assumption is that the services both have a bias to affect the
outcome of a match. That is, to create a more even amount of
winners and losers than would occur in real life.
In other words, their programs are specifically biased, not randomly
biased. Specifically biased to increase playing time, increase
memberships, increase income.
jerry schonewille
In article <35051ff7...@news.businessnet.dk>, rac...@cityraccoon.com wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 15:07:20 GMT, jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead) wrote
>about his experience with winning and losing streaks on Netgammon:
>
>>I have no facts, just observations, so that's all I can present.
>
>Fair enough. If you want to speculate about a server's dice, I don't
>think that's at all useful without facts. But we can talk usefully
>about observations -- if we can keep in mind what is and what is not a
>fact.
>
>>Like I said in my original post, don't ask me how or why this is
>>happening. I don't have an answer for either. The only thing I KNOW is
>>that ever since Netgammon started I have had MANY and almost CONSTANT
>>huge winning and losing streaks. That's what I KNOW.
>
I still say this debate can be settled once and for all if Netgammon would
simply publish the code for their dice rolling algorithm in this newsgroup and
let people knowledgable in software programming and/or statistics examine it.
Seems like a win-win to me. I've made this suggestion to Negammon, they have
chosen not to take my suggestion. And so the debate continues ....
best regards,
Jerry Schonewille
jerry at polymore dot com
San Jose California
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On 09-maa-98 21:00:35, Tom Vavasour wrote:
TV> I'm sure all you guys believe in project 51 and think the X- files s a
TV> documentary. The reason most of you think the dice are rigged is the
TV> same reason people go to clairvoyants and astrologers
And you *are* a clairvoyant and just "see" that those dice are fair?
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan
FERRANTE
(snip)
>Seems like a win-win to me. I've made this suggestion to Negammon, they have
>chosen not to take my suggestion. And so the debate continues ....
>
>best regards,
>
> Jerry Schonewille
> jerry at polymore dot com
> San Jose California
I made a suggestion that a button be placed next to the board which
would allow someone to view the pip count/ELO without having to hold
down the crtl and "E" keys. That to me is distracting. Or better yet,
have the pip count visible somewhere on the board, you know, like the
banners are at the bottom where they advertise (animated)...
They have not even acknowledged my suggestion. Funny thing is, prior
to my paying, they would write me back, now that they have my
money--they don't.
Mark Ferrante
Chuck Bower
In article <6e4qjd$154$1...@usenet48.supernews.com>,
jerry schonewille <jerry@not_really_my_domain.com> wrote:
(snip)
>I still say this debate can be settled once and for all if Netgammon would
>simply publish the code for their dice rolling algorithm in this newsgroup and
>let people knowledgable in software programming and/or statistics examine it.
>
>Seems like a win-win to me. I've made this suggestion to Negammon, they have
>chosen not to take my suggestion. And so the debate continues ....
Hmmm. Let me see if I understand this logic. Netgammon, who is
rumored to have experienced a problem because someone cracked the random
number generator, should publish the replacement for all interested parties.
OK. Let's forget that. I'm not "knowledgable in software programming"
so there is likely some detail that I'm missing. LET'S ASSUME THAT NETGAMMON
DOES THIS AND THAT SAID KNOWLEDGABLE PEOPLE BLESS IT AS BEING FAIR AND PROPER.
The assumption is that the doubters will then be satisfied that they
were mistaken, and go back to playing on this server, content in the fact
that either a) they were on some kind of run of bad dice, or b) they were
botching their winning chances with less than optimal play.
Egoes are laid aside. Logic prevails. And we all live happily ever
after....
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
John Goodwin
On 13 Mar 1998 01:39:24 GMT, bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck
Bower) wrote:
>In article <6e4qjd$154$1...@usenet48.supernews.com>,
>jerry schonewille <jerry@not_really_my_domain.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>I still say this debate can be settled once and for all if Netgammon would
>>simply publish the code for their dice rolling algorithm in this newsgroup and
>>let people knowledgable in software programming and/or statistics examine it.
>>
>>Seems like a win-win to me. I've made this suggestion to Negammon, they have
>>chosen not to take my suggestion. And so the debate continues ....
>
> Hmmm. Let me see if I understand this logic. Netgammon, who is
>rumored to have experienced a problem because someone cracked the random
>number generator, should publish the replacement for all interested parties.
>
> OK. Let's forget that.
>so there is likely some detail that I'm missing. LET'S ASSUME THAT NETGAMMON
>DOES THIS AND THAT SAID KNOWLEDGABLE PEOPLE BLESS IT AS BEING FAIR AND PROPER.
>The assumption is that the doubters will then be satisfied that they
>were mistaken, and go back to playing on this server, content in the fact
>that either a) they were on some kind of run of bad dice, or b) they were
>botching their winning chances with less than optimal play.
>
> Egoes are laid aside. Logic prevails. And we all live happily ever
>after....
>
That's not the point. If there was evidence that the random number
generator was fair, then this evidence could be quoted to doubters in
the same way that experimental methods can be posted to counter
allegations of JellyFish cheating.
If someone persists in making allegations in the face of good
conflicting evidence, they will just look foolish and unreasonable.
Some would, no doubt do it anyway.
There is a far easier way to show that the allegations of a never
ending sequence of winning and losing streaks cannot be an engineered
aspect of NetGammon play.
Let us hypothesise for a moment, that this is, indeed, their
intention.
Each player, at any given time is therefore on either a winning or
losing streak.
So consider the game possibilities:
Player A: WinStreak LoseStreak
Player B
WinStreak ?????? B Wins
LoseStreak A Wins ??????
So only in 50% of games could the system work out who to make the
winner.
Thus in the other 50% of cases, it would have to leave it to luck and
skill, and one of the players would have their streak broken.
So, as you can see, the idea that NetGammon can have all their players
perpetually assigned to either a winning or losing streak is
unsupportable.
It would, of course be possible for NetGammon to engineer a system
that assured players tended to win 50% of their games, by giving each
player a weighting that expressed how much they needed to win or lose,
based on their previous games, and engineering it so that the player
with the higher 'need to win' weighting did indeed win.
This would ensure that each player won, over a period, 50% of their
games.
It would be easy to program this system, but, if they did, the result
would be almost the exact opposite of that which is being complained
of.
The system would be working, in effect, to ensure that streaks were
kept as short as possible.
It would be very hard to make a reasonable sounding complaint against
such a system, because it would actually be *more* random than it
should be, but try to make a case of something being *too* random,
and, unless your audience are mathematicians, you're going to sound
two sandwiches short of a picnic.
For example, which of these three sequences are the more likely:
163521436251
656565656565
112356621533
The answer is, of course, that they are all equally likely, but to
someone untrained in probability, the top one will probably look much
more random than the other two.
It is odd, that several people have complained about NetGammon, and
the one thing they have in common is that they are complaining as much
about winning streaks as losing ones.
It's also odd that no NetGammon customers have come to their defence
and stated that their pattern of winning/losing seems to accord with
the patterns generated in real life, or on other servers, or are
simply not as marked.
Furthermore it is strange that a company that makes its money on the
net does not monitor the usenet group that is dedicated to the area in
which they operate, and defend themselves against the accusations that
come up from time to time.
However, unless someone can explain how their suspicions can be
reconciled with the paradox presented by the table above, it does not
seem that there *can* be a case to answer.
JG
John Goodwin
>In article <6e4qjd$154$1...@usenet48.supernews.com>,
>jerry schonewille <jerry@not_really_my_domain.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>I still say this debate can be settled once and for all if Netgammon would
>>simply publish the code for their dice rolling algorithm in this newsgroup and
>>let people knowledgable in software programming and/or statistics examine it.
>>
>>Seems like a win-win to me. I've made this suggestion to Negammon, they have
>>chosen not to take my suggestion. And so the debate continues ....
>
> Hmmm. Let me see if I understand this logic. Netgammon, who is
>rumored to have experienced a problem because someone cracked the random
>number generator, should publish the replacement for all interested parties.
>
> OK. Let's forget that.
Why?
There are three aspects that determine the 'goodness' of a random
number generator.
1. Its minimum period. That is the smallest number of values it will
generate before repeating the sequence.
2. Its distribution. That is to say, that when you take the raw
output, no matter what property you abstract from that output, over a
reasonable period, plotting that abstraction will yield a flat graph.
3. Absence of generation artifacts. That is the absence of 'rules'
such as a six is always followed by a five, or, you never get more
than three odd numbers in a row.
If a published algorithm passes tests 2 and 3, then unless the period
is absurdly small it should be perfectly adequate for dice generation.
Although it is conceivable that someone who could get access to enough
samples of the generator's linear output could manage to determine its
sequence, it is unlikely, and may not be feasible if NetGammon have
taken the sensible option of using *one* instantiation of the random
number generator for all games, rather than instantiating a new
version for each.
In the former case, the fact that each player is getting numbers from
the sequence that are randomly spaced (in a manner that he cannot
determine), would mean the dice could not be cracked.
In the latter case, and in the absence of any other randomising
activity such as modification of the current seed based on the time,
and further, given enough sample data, and sufficient computing power
and storage, it is a certainty that it is *possible* to crack the
sequence.
Publishing the generator algorithm would allow tests to be made for
attributes 2 and 3, which, if passed would, together with some chaotic
interference such as I have suggested above, ensure 100% confidence in
the system's fairness.
I make no comment about whether or not NetGammon should feel they have
a need or duty to publish the algorithm. I have already pointed out in
another post that they cannot be guilty of exactly what they have been
accused of, because it cannot logically be achieved.
JG
Using some
internat...@yahoo.com
In article <6ea2oc$pff$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck Bower) wrote:
>mmm. Let me see if I understand this logic. Netgammon, who is
> rumored to have experienced a problem because someone cracked the >random
> number generator, should publish the replacement for all interested parties.
Forgive me, but I don't understand why knowing the code would necessarily
give one the ability to predict rolls. In the early days of BASIC the random
number generator function required a "seed" in order to generate
unpredictable numbers; presumably the same is true in general for random (OK,
pseudo-random) number generators? Even if they draw the seed from the system
clock or some other internal source? Seems to me that with a program of any
sophistication it would be a nigh-impossible task to work backward from any
given series of rolls to determine the "seed" and hence to be able to predict
future rolls. What am I missing?
PS - The thing that always worried me about Netgammon (in the free days) was
that the rolls were so preordained that your opponent could see your dice
before you rolled them in some cases ... this seemed like a blatant challenge
to clever programmers to figure out the algorithm; but after all, it's just a
game ...
Kenny Lee Smith
John Goodwin <J...@opticon.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<3508e667....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
> It would, of course be possible for NetGammon to engineer a system
> that assured players tended to win 50% of their games, by giving each
> player a weighting that expressed how much they needed to win or lose,
> based on their previous games, and engineering it so that the player
> with the higher 'need to win' weighting did indeed win.
>
> This would ensure that each player won, over a period, 50% of their
> games.
>
> It would be easy to program this system, but, if they did, the result
> would be almost the exact opposite of that which is being complained
> of.
>
> The system would be working, in effect, to ensure that streaks were
> kept as short as possible.
It appears that the scenario that Netgammon has programmed into their
service is indeed for players to win 50/50.
The reason players complain about "streaks" is that the program allows you
a
winning streak up to a certain rating, then a losing streak down to a
certain
rating. Both streaks give wildly improbable dice consistently. You win or
lose depending on which way you are programmed to go.
I have been told that this is to keep members playing longer. Also, to
increase
membership. Newer players with lower ratings go up. Conversely players
who have already paid and moved up go down for a while.
What's the math on this one?
Michael Ambrus
>jerry schonewille <jerry@not_really_my_domain.com> wrote:
>
>I still say this debate can be settled once and for all if Netgammon
would
>simply publish the code for their dice rolling algorithm in this newsgroup
and
>let people knowledgable in software programming and/or statistics
examine it.
First of all, as a software developer myself, I would never disclose the code that I have written or the algorithms that I have used for my work. There are some common "randomizer" algorithms that exist, and if GOTO was using one of these, then maybe I would disclose it. but if it was one that I created, I would never do it.
You vote with your dollars - if you like the service, pay for it; if you don't, don't.
>>jerry schonewille <jerry@not_really_my_domain.com> wrote:
>>Seems like a win-win to me. I've made this suggestion to Negammon,
they have
>>chosen not to take my suggestion. And so the debate continues
....
>John Goodwin wrote:
>That's not the point. If there was evidence that the random number
>generator was fair, then this evidence could be quoted to doubters
in
>the same way that experimental methods can be posted to counter
>allegations of JellyFish cheating.
But, what they have done is create a URL where they have posted the results of their random number generator. Check out http://www.netgammon.com/stats.html.
If you don't believe the results, then, what can I say. Personally, I don't give in much to conspiracy theories - I don't believe black hueys with UN troops fly over my house, I don't believe that Bill Clinton is the puppet of the NWO, I don't believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and I don't believe that Netgammon conspires against people by using "fixed" dice.
>John Goodwin wrote:
>It's also odd that no NetGammon customers have come to their defence
>and stated that their pattern of winning/losing seems to accord with
>the patterns generated in real life, or on other servers, or are
>simply not as marked.
Well, John, I am a paying NetGammon customer. I don't know if I am really coming to their defense, per se, because I believe that something "goofy" is going on with their dice, but I surely don't believe that they set out to make certain people win and lose.
The odds of rolling a double are 1:6 or 16.67%. I started recording my matches at Netgammon and looking at the rolls, and over my last 40+ games, doubles are coming up 23.7% of the time. Is there something wrong here, or just the danger of small sample statistics? Most assuradely(sp) it is the latter, but as these rolls are done in a higher percentage by my opponents than myself, and I am currently on a losing streak (8 wins and 12 loses over last 20 games), it is frustrating.
Of course, I don't forget that I rode out a 18-2 streak when I first started Netgammon to go from 1600 to 1850 elo - well above my actual ability. There are good streaks when you win a lot , and bad streaks when you lose a lot, but if you play many, many game, the good and bad will even out and you will end up where your real ablilities lie.
Michael
Colin Johnson
On 11 Mar 98 00:36:53 +0100, Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
<veld...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi, this is my first time visiting this newsgroup and I'm glad I did.
It seems I'm not alone in thinking Netgammon is a total con...
I, like many others, have wasted hour after hour on this server.
In my dissy heights I even reached 1850 elo but never got any higher.
A lot of the higher players were complete frauds, either baby killing
( playing inexperienced palyers of really low elo or using multiple
bogus accounts where one account is kept for winning and the others
are used to lose to the winning account).
Anyway I reset my elo to 1500 because no one would play me very much
because I kept beating them. I complained to Netgammon that the
dice appeared fixed, i.e the heaven/hell scenario. You are one throw
away from gammon and you are forced by the dice to leave a man, they
hit and win blah blah. This happens in real life too but not with the
frequency it happens on Netgammon.
I then became a member to see if that affected it. Nope.
So after a week I asked GOTO for my money back and they refused.
Whatever happened to 30 days grace period???
I came back under a different name and started winning again, then I
made the fatal mistake of contacting them to get my name changed back
again. What do you think started happening??
Thats it, I started losing again - big time.
Now I don't consider myself an average BG player by any means. I can
beat JF 3.0 consistently on level 7 (I even backgammoned it last
night) but I seem to have a 30 point window on Netgammon where I
go up and down consistently by this amount.
I am a proffesional programmer and have asked GOTO to publish their
number generation algorithm on more than one occasion but they
refuse.
I have now started playing on FIBS and made 1598 with 24 experience.
I'm waiting to lose now but already the dice patterns appear far more
random than on Netgammon (although there are way too much doubles!).
So my advice to anyone is this:
Have a look at Netgammon by all means.
Trust no one on there - there are lots of cheats.
DO NOT PAY them for anything. You'll regret it.
Colin Johnson.
NETGAMMON : Evil_Ted.
FIBS: Dipsy.
jerry schonewille
In article <35097869...@fuse.net>, Michael Ambrus <mike_...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
>--------------E60AE13E0541AB2041BA7973
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Just to add fuel to the fire, I will throw in my own two cents on the Netgammon
>Fixed Dice Conspiracy.
>
>>jerry schonewille <jerry@not_really_my_domain.com> wrote:
>>
>>I still say this debate can be settled once and for all if Netgammon would
>>simply publish the code for their dice rolling algorithm in this newsgroup and
>>let people knowledgable in software programming and/or statistics examine it.
>
>First of all, as a software developer myself, I would never disclose the code
> that I
>have written or the algorithms that I have used for my work. There are some
> common
>"randomizer" algorithms that exist, and if GOTO was using one of these, then
> maybe I
>would disclose it. but if it was one that I created, I would never do it.
>
>You vote with your dollars - if you like the service, pay for it; if you don't,
>don't.
>
I too am a software developer and like you I would never publish a proprietary
algorithm in a public forum. Random number generators have been studied a
long time and their strengths and weaknesses are well known. Now if Netgammon
were to refuse to reveal their code sniplet because they have invented some
new proprietary way of randomly generating dice, then I would support your
argument. But if that were the case, it would only provide more evidence to
those suspecting the dice are rigged.
I do vote with my dollars. Netgammon continues to be my favorite backgammon
server. I have not accused them of rigging the dice, but like many others I
am suspicious there is something wrong with the dice. My suggestion is one
that would benefit both Netgammon and its customers assuming they have nothing
to hide.
MJR
Chuck Bower wrote:
>
> In article <6e4qjd$154$1...@usenet48.supernews.com>,
> jerry schonewille <jerry@not_really_my_domain.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
> >simply publish the code for their dice rolling algorithm in this newsgroup and
> >let people knowledgable in software programming and/or statistics examine it.
> >
Would publishing the code really prove anything? They can publish any
algorithm they want...what proof would there be that they are actually
using it? If someone thinks they are underhanded enough to be using a
biased algorithm, then they would probably also expect them to be
underhanded enough to publish a false algorithm. I cant see any benefit
to any of the servers publishing their algorithms..it would just seem to
invite more public controversy.
jerry schonewille
In article <6ea2oc$pff$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck Bower) wrote:
>In article <6e4qjd$154$1...@usenet48.supernews.com>,
>jerry schonewille <jerry@not_really_my_domain.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>I still say this debate can be settled once and for all if Netgammon would
>>simply publish the code for their dice rolling algorithm in this newsgroup and
>>let people knowledgable in software programming and/or statistics examine it.
>>
>>chosen not to take my suggestion. And so the debate continues ....
>
>rumored to have experienced a problem because someone cracked the random
>number generator, should publish the replacement for all interested parties.
>
It is not a rumor. They posted an email to all their subscribers about it.
Some people were able to predict what the next dice roll would be.
Most likely we are talking about a psuedo-random number generator, meaning
that the numbers generated fit the definition of randomness but for a given
seed the sequence is always the same. If you know the seed and the algorithm
then you can predict the next number. The key is to frequently, and randomly,
generate a new seed.
Las Vegas deals with this by restarting the random number generator with a new
seed when the first coin is inserted into the slot machine. Netgammon could
do a similar thing by reseeding when a player moves his first checker on each
play.
I don't claim to be an expert in this field, I'm just saying that those who
are could spot these flaws and provide suggestions on how to correct them. My
assumption being that Netgammon does in fact want random numbers as they
claim.
> OK. Let's forget that. I'm not "knowledgable in software programming"
>so there is likely some detail that I'm missing. LET'S ASSUME THAT NETGAMMON
>DOES THIS AND THAT SAID KNOWLEDGABLE PEOPLE BLESS IT AS BEING FAIR AND PROPER.
>The assumption is that the doubters will then be satisfied that they
>were mistaken, and go back to playing on this server, content in the fact
>that either a) they were on some kind of run of bad dice, or b) they were
>botching their winning chances with less than optimal play.
>
> Egoes are laid aside. Logic prevails. And we all live happily ever
>after....
That is the assumption. If it is indepently proven that the dice are not
biased or predictable then you must accept that luck is part of the game
and/or there is room for improvement in your play. Now that may not make
everyone live happily ever after, some people need excuses for why they lose,
but it works for me. And it would end this debate once and for all.
MJR
MJR wrote:
>
> Chuck Bower wrote:
> >
My apologies Chuck...you name accidently shows on my last post in this
thread even tho I snipped out all your comments.
Sorry.
jerry schonewille
In article <3509F808...@ptd.net>, MJR <hac...@ptd.net> wrote:
>Chuck Bower wrote:
>>
>> In article <6e4qjd$154$1...@usenet48.supernews.com>,
>> jerry schonewille <jerry@not_really_my_domain.com> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>> >I still say this debate can be settled once and for all if Netgammon would
>> >simply publish the code for their dice rolling algorithm in this newsgroup
> and
>> >let people knowledgable in software programming and/or statistics examine
> it.
>> >
>
>
>algorithm they want...what proof would there be that they are actually
>using it? If someone thinks they are underhanded enough to be using a
>biased algorithm, then they would probably also expect them to be
>underhanded enough to publish a false algorithm. I cant see any benefit
>to any of the servers publishing their algorithms..it would just seem to
>invite more public controversy.
Ok. I give up. Never mind. Backgammon players are a peculiar lot <g>
Onionhead
>
> I don't know if I am really coming to their defense, per se, because I believe that something
>"goofy" is going on with their dice, but I surely don't believe that they
>set out to make certain people win and lose.
One thing though, if Netgammon isn't producing random dice, (and if
they're "goofy", they're not random), then people who play there are
not able to use strategies based on legit dice. Well, they can use
them alright, but they won't yield the same results. So the question
becomes, what strategy *do* you use? And, if you do manage to come up
with something, then you're gonna get screwed up when playing with
real dice.
I'll say it again - I want to play BACKGAMMON - *NOT* a close
approximation of it. If the dice are not random, then it is not
backgammon, and what's the point of playing?
My average eol on Netgammon is around 1650. I would much rather have
an elo of 1400, and know that it is based on random dice. At least I
would be able to learn from my mistakes, and improve my game. Since
the dice are apparently goofy, how can you:
1. possibly hope to improve your game?
2. believe that there is any validity to your rating (elo)
What is the point in playing with goofy dice, unless you want to
socialize while playing a game you that have significantly less
control over than you should? Nothing wrong with wanting to do that,
but that's not what I'm paying Netgammon for.
>but I surely don't believe that they
>set out to make certain people win and lose.
All the complainers that I've seen (I'm 1 of them), have not been
complaining of losing too much or winning too much. It's these
unnatural streaks!
>There are good streaks when you win a lot , and bad streaks when you lose
>a lot, but if you play many, many game, the good and bad will even out
>and you will end up where your real ablilities lie.
>
Nope! As I stated earlier, if the dice are "goofy" (YOUR own term),
then the conditions are different than in real backgammon, and unless
you know exactly in what manner thay differ, you can't know if they
ultimately help you, hurt you, or balance out. That's the real
frustration here!!!!! Based on my playing at Netgammon I have NO IDEA
how good or bad a player I am!!!!! I contend that their rating system
is completely meaningless. Might as well play at the Internet Gaming
Zone for free. They don't keep ratings, but that's no worse than
having a meaningless number to look at.
And again, what's the point of playing if you don't know the rules of
the dice? Might as well play candyland - all luck, and no strategy.
John Goodwin
On 13 Mar 1998 17:57:30 GMT, "Kenny Lee Smith" <kl...@premiernet.net>
wrote:
>
>
I'm going to do a Chuck Bowers now:
I'm incredulous.
I explained why what you have suggested above is impossible.
Really impossible.
Not like the sun rising in the west, or meeting a man with 5 arms.
It just cannot happen.
But you excised the part of my post that explained that, and just
asked the question again.
I'll paraphrase what I said before just in case it was too esoteric
(or I explained it badly).
You cannot engineer a system where all the players are forever on
winning streaks, or losing streaks, (unless you have control over who
plays whom), because, inevitably, two people on the same streak would
have to play together, and thus the streak for one of them would be
broken.
On average, 50% of games would fall into this category, so (again on
average), your 'streaks' would only be 3 games long.
Now, why would they use this bizarre approach that does not work
properly, and would be easily detectable, when they could use the much
more sophisticated technique I outlined in my previous post, that is
just as easy to implement, and much harder to detect?
The motivation for doing it at all is suspect, and the motivation for
trying to do it in such a cack handed manner is just not
comprehensible.
JG
Kevin Dickover
On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 04:02:54 GMT, jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead)
wrote:
>Nope! As I stated earlier, if the dice are "goofy" (YOUR own term),
>then the conditions are different than in real backgammon, and unless
>you know exactly in what manner thay differ, you can't know if they
>ultimately help you, hurt you, or balance out. That's the real
>frustration here!!!!! Based on my playing at Netgammon I have NO IDEA
>how good or bad a player I am!!!!! I contend that their rating system
>is completely meaningless. Might as well play at the Internet Gaming
>Zone for free. They don't keep ratings, but that's no worse than
>having a meaningless number to look at.
>
Come to fibs-it's free and you get to play backgammon rather then a
close apporximation :-) You also get rated.
Romans 8:38-39(NASB)
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels
nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor powers, nor hight, nor depth, nor any other created thing,
will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in
Christ Jesus, our Lord.
Kevin Dickover
<)))><
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On 13-maa-98 19:18:17, Michael Ambrus wrote:
MA> If you don't believe the results, then, what can I say. Personally, I
MA> don't give in much to conspiracy theories - I don't believe black hueys
MA> with UN troops fly over my house, I don't believe that Bill Clinton is
MA> the puppet of the NWO, I don't believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and I
MA> don't believe that Netgammon conspires against people by using "fixed"
MA> dice.
How about talk show guests that are actors? Or quiz candidates that know
the answers beforehand? :)
MA> The odds of rolling a double are 1:6 or 16.67%. I started recording my
MA> matches at Netgammon and looking at the rolls, and over my last 40+
MA> games, doubles are coming up 23.7% of the time. Is there something wrong
MA> here, or just the danger of small sample statistics? Most
MA> assuradely(sp) it is the latter, but as these rolls are done in a higher
MA> percentage by my opponents than myself, and I am currently on a losing
MA> streak (8 wins and 12 loses over last 20 games), it is frustrating.
MA> Of course, I don't forget that I rode out a 18-2 streak when I first
MA> started Netgammon to go from 1600 to 1850 elo - well above my actual
MA> ability. There are good streaks when you win a lot , and bad streaks
MA> when you lose a lot, but if you play many, many game, the good and bad
MA> will even out and you will end up where your real ablilities lie.
Well a 18-2 winning streak when you start confirms what has been said
about "satisfying new customers". Of course it's not *that* unlikely,
but let's say quite remarkable (unless you only played very weak
players of course).
Your other numbers are more interesting, maybe you can provide actual
figures? I'll do a rough calculation:
40 games, let's say 22.5 moves per game on average, that would make a
900 rolls sample. Normally you would expect about 150 doubles, you
probably got about 900*0.237= ~213 doubles.
Using the standard normal distribution approximation:
Z = (213-150)/sqrt(900*5/36) = ~5.63
which is *VERY* unlikely, in fact my table here only goes upto 3.69
which has a probabilty of less than 0.0001 or 1 in 10,000! You could
well be in the 1 in 100,000 order I estimate.
So if your data and my guesses are somewhat correct, I sure *would*
worry about getting fair dice for your money.
MA> Michael
MA> <HTML>
Please don't use HTML on USENET, thanks.
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On 14-maa-98 07:14:08, John Goodwin wrote:
JG> You cannot engineer a system where all the players are forever on
JG> winning streaks, or losing streaks, (unless you have control over who
JG> plays whom), because, inevitably, two people on the same streak would
JG> have to play together, and thus the streak for one of them would be
JG> broken.
But it is very possible to make a system where the "streaks" consist of
80% wins and 20% losses and the reverse. People on the same "streak"
playing each other could end the streak for one of the two...lots of
things are possible.
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan
FERRANTE
>that you for not falling asleep before now
I can only fall asleep once during the day. I did it this a.m. during
the Priest's homily...
>see you all on gg, fibs and netgammon
>
>dave magyar
>dm on gg and netgammon
>dmagyar on fibs
>
Of the three, which do you like better and why?
Mark Ferrante
GrandWizard on Netgammon
>
>
>In article <35032BB0.31D3CFB2@_R_E_M_O_V_E_wt.net>,
>candrade@_R_E_M_O_V_E_wt.net says...
>>
>>> ~ end of my 2 cents ~
>>
>>Stick'em up in your ass, and listen!!!
>>
>>I can't say anything about Netgammon, but I suspect the dice ARE biased
>>on GG. Like Kenny said, they'll let you raise your rating, then drop it,
>>so you'll work hard to get it back up. OR they will give you a whole
>>bunch of good rolls, then a whole bunch of bad rolls (namely 52, 21, and
>>I don't think there's anything worse than that), so you'll be happy w/
>>your win/loss share and will keep playing (and paying).
>>
>>In GG, I started off well, my rating rose from 1500 to the 1700's, now
>>I'm losing match after match, and my rating is dropping to the 1200's.
>>
>>If you're half as good as you say you are, Marie, why don't you get your
>>hands on REAL, UNBIASED dice and play, huh???
>>
>>Let's all keep in mind that backgammon is GAMBLING, it DOES take a small
>>percentage of luck to win.
>>
>>Rodrigo
>>
dave magyar
well, everyone knows by now that i cannot resist putting in my "two cents"
one, i believe that there is a study cyrrently being done over the dice on
gg. so if you have any questions ask the people that be on there and you may
find out more.
two, i have played on all of the mentioned fibs, gg and netgammon and i have
found one thing that seems to hold pretty true. dice are wacky everywhere,
but a little more normal that most would suspect. i am not big on math and
*that* is probably why my rating is only in thw 1800's and not higher. if i
were better at math i am sure i would know exactly how good or bad the dice
really are anywhere. anyway, i used to blame the lost games on the dice all
the time and i realized on small thing. now pay attention and i hope kit or
someone else will tell me if i am wrong! when you spend time focusing on the
bad rolls you tend to lose focus on the game/match and you tend to lose more.
let me repeat that for those of you who are still asleep, when you spend
time focusing on the bad rolls you tend to lose focus on the game/match and
you tend to lose more.
me, i tend to let whatever happen happen. the other night i was playing an
op on gg and she rolled 11 doubles in 23 rolls. now you tell me that isn't
something to want to cry over. guess what i did? i let it go and i still
won the match. lost *that* game though :))
third, and last, but certainly not least! i have been coming here for a long
time and i have seen a lot of bad words come and go, but i think that rodrigo
has set a new standard for taking an opinion too far. please try to keep
those sort of remarks under some sort of control. not everyone gets as big
of a kick out of them as you might.
that you for not falling asleep before now
see you all on gg, fibs and netgammon
dave magyar
dm on gg and netgammon
dmagyar on fibs
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On 16-maa-98 02:00:32, dave magyar wrote:
dm> let me repeat that for those of you who are still asleep, when you spend
dm> time focusing on the bad rolls you tend to lose focus on the game/match
dm> and you tend to lose more.
You just woke me up! ;) This is good advise of course, although if you
get lots of bad rolls it's very hard not to let that influence your
moves, especially if you're still trying to learn how to play.
I notice this most when blitzing. You often take quite a lot of risk
doing that, and a bit of luck may win you a doubled gammon whereas some
bad luck cost you the (redoubled) game or even a gammon. Now if you have
been having lots of bad luck, do you still hit loose? :)
dm> me, i tend to let whatever happen happen. the other night i was playing
dm> an op on gg and she rolled 11 doubles in 23 rolls. now you tell me that
dm> isn't something to want to cry over.
I tell you, it *is* something to cry over :) If I got my math right this
would happen about 1 out of 5,000 times in a sample of 23 rolls. But as
long as these unlikely events *stay* unlikely (i.e. they don't happen
more often than one would expect) it's just bad luck that stroke you.
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan
Colin Johnson
On 10 Mar 1998 18:19:41 GMT, "Kenny Lee Smith" <kl...@premiernet.net>
wrote:
>
>
Well I for one am convinced that Netgammons operators are a bunch of
crooks and that they do indeed fiddle the dice to fabvour weak
players.
I wasted a lot of my time on Netgammon and in the beginning was
getting noticed by the top players, because my game is pretty strong,
strong enough to beat Jellyfish 3.0 on level 7 consistently, and I
rose to 1850 elo.
I tried to get games against the very top players but none of them
would play me. I complained to Netgammon that the people with the
highest elo were "baby killers" playing people with 1100 elo for
example just to get more points and that they should limit ones range
of games. Thankfully they did implement this feature but I feel that
once I had spoken out of turn the switch was pulled on me and I had
the most consistent bad dice against people that couldn't even play!
Seriously, I got pipped by the throw from heaven versus the throw from
hell on so many occasions that in disgust I reset my elo back to 1500.
It didn't matter - I was marked as far as they were concerned.
My advice - stay well clear of Netgammon.
Chuck Bower
In article <3509fc49...@news.globalvillage.com>,
Colin Johnson <colin_...@globalvillage.com> wrote:
>Now I don't consider myself an average BG player by any means. I can
>beat JF 3.0 consistently on level 7 (I even backgammoned it last
>night) but I seem to have a 30 point window on Netgammon where I
>go up and down consistently by this amount.
Average player? I'd say not! I would guess that there are no
more than a handful (less than 10) of human players in the world who
can "beat JF 3.0 consistently on level 7".
I saw a "Sunnyvale, CA" address on one of your posts. If I recall
my geography, that is close to San Mateo, which is the location of the
"Backgammon by the Bay" club. Have you played there? If not, you may
want to check them out at:
http://www.backgammon.org/bgbb/
and get their schedule. I know there is at least one other potential JF
beater who plays there--Kit Woolsey. And there are many other strong
players there as well. You may be able to find some good competion.
John Goodwin
On 17 Mar 1998 18:10:38 GMT, bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck
Bower) wrote:
snip
>
> Average player? I'd say not! I would guess that there are no
>more than a handful (less than 10) of human players in the world who
>can "beat JF 3.0 consistently on level 7".
>
I can beat JF level 7 consistantly.
Consistantly 1 game in ~3.5 (on average).
J.G.
Harold Evenson
Chuck Bower wrote in message <6emeau$2eg$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>
> Average player? I'd say not! I would guess that there are no
>more than a handful (less than 10) of human players in the world who
>can "beat JF 3.0 consistently on level 7".
>
I don't know about that. I play 21-point matches again JF on level 7, and I
win the match about half the time. I think I am a better than average (but
not awesome) player.
helmet
When i played on netgammon it was free.
I was amazed that i was able at one point to hit
1900 putting me in the top 10 at the time.
Im only about 1650 on fics!.
Then something strange happened. i had played
about 2000 games on netgammon when suddenly i
had a huge losing streak. Im talking three whole weeks
without winning a single match.
I dropped from 1900 to 1700, losing about 50 matches on the trot.
I have never experienced anything like this on fics.
I noticed several things started happening in this losing run.
I started getting many double sixes, but only when i was on the bar.
Whenever i had a blot hit it would take ages to get it back in.
When in a race my oppomnent would get many doubles while
i was on 1 2 s
This wasnt imagination something strange was happening with the dice.
Also on netgammon anyone notice that the dice make a different sound
when you role a double? or have they fixed that one
helmet