100 JF matches replayed
Murat Kalinyaprak
1 point that I had played against JF level 7/1000
last summer, starting each match at the same seed
and counter values as the first time, but hadn't
found the tome to write about it.
Below are the results. "*" indicates matches that
lasted exactly the same amount of moves and won by
the same player. "!" indicates the same but within
2 moves which could be due to bearing off a little
differently since this time around I let JF finish
the games after contact was broken in order to save
myself time and effort. The last 2 columns show a
comparative running score. Last summer I had written
even about my state of mind while playing those 100
games on different days, which the matches 60-100
were played the next day and JF had caught up. The
difference in score seems to be due to the fact that
this time JF didn't get to catch up after the 60th
match.
Anyway, I'm posting stuff like this just in case it
may be interesting to some readers. More comments
follow the stats...
=========================================================
Round1 Round2
winner winner Score Score
Game & pts. Cntr. & pts. Cntr. MK-JF MK-JF
---- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- -------
01 jf 2 0050 jf 1 0049! 00-01 00-01
02 mk 1 0128 mk 2 0102 01-01 01-01
03 jf 1 0170 jf 2 0174! 01-02 01-02
04 mk 1 0219 mk 2 0219* 02-02 02-02
05 mk 1 0264 mk 1 0282 03-02 03-02
06 mk 1 0312 mk 1 0314! 04-02 04-02
07 mk 1 0361 mk 1 0369 05-02 05-02
08 mk 1 0402 mk 2 0424 06-02 06-02
09 mk 1 0443 jf 1 0446 07-02 06-03
10 mk 1 0492 mk 1 0496! 08-02 07-03
11 jf 2 0534 mk 2 0535 08-03 08-03
12 mk 1 0580 mk 2 0582! 09-03 09-03
13 mk 1 0619 mk 1 0619* 10-03 10-03
14 jf 1 0664 mk 1 0679 10-04 11-03
15 mk 2 0731 mk 3 0731* 11-04 12-03
16 mk 1 0775 mk 1 0777! 12-04 13-03
17 mk 1 0820 mk 1 0838 13-04 14-03
18 jf 1 0899 jf 3 0883 13-05 14-04
19 mk 3 0956 mk 2 0960! 14-05 15-04
20 jf 1 1008 jf 2 1008* 14-06 15-05
21 mk 1 1049 mk 1 1065 15-06 16-05
22 mk 1 1097 mk 1 1091 16-06 17-05
23 jf 1 1169 jf 2 1137 16-07 17-06
24 mk 1 1275 mk 1 1237 17-07 18-06
25 jf 2 1327 jf 2 1327* 17-08 18-07
26 jf 1 1385 mk 1 1364 17-09 19-07
27 jf 2 1439 mk 1 1426 17-10 20-07
28 mk 2 1499 mk 1 1489 18-10 21-07
29 mk 1 1541 jf 1 1550 19-10 21-08
30 jf 1 1588 jf 2 1606 19-11 21-09
31 mk 1 1646 mk 1 1642! 20-11 22-09
32 jf 2 1689 jf 1 1689* 20-12 22-10
33 jf 2 1784 mk 2 1773 20-13 23-10
34 mk 2 1831 mk 2 1839 21-13 24-10
35 mk 1 1872 mk 1 1874! 22-13 25-10
36 jf 1 1928 mk 1 1917 22-14 26-10
37 jf 2 1988 mk 1 1999 22-15 27-10
38 jf 1 2043 mk 1 2036 22-16 28-10
39 mk 1 2085 jf 1 2100 23-16 28-11
40 jf 1 2135 jf 1 2145 23-17 28-12
41 mk 1 2180 jf 1 2207 24-17 28-13
42 jf 1 2227 mk 1 2234 24-18 29-13
43 mk 1 2266 mk 1 2266* 25-18 30-13
44 jf 1 2312 mk 1 2325 25-19 31-13
45 jf 1 2363 jf 1 2371 25-20 31-14
46 mk 1 2426 jf 1 2409 26-20 31-15
47 mk 1 2462 jf 1 2485 27-20 31-16
48 mk 3 2516 jf 2 2503 28-20 31-17
49 mk 1 2561 mk 1 2607 29-20 32-17
50 jf 1 2619 jf 1 2639 29-21 32-18
51 jf 1 2675 jf 1 2661 29-22 32-19
52 jf 1 2713 mk 1 2724 29-23 33-19
53 mk 1 2765 jf 1 2754 30-23 33-20
54 mk 3 2810 mk 3 2810* 31-23 34-20
55 mk 1 2855 mk 1 2855* 32-23 35-20
56 mk 1 2897 mk 1 2899! 33-23 36-20
57 mk 1 2939 jf 1 2954 34-23 36-21
58 mk 1 2982 mk 1 2982* 35-23 37-21
59 jf 1 3028 mk 1 3025 35-24 38-21
60 mk 1 3072 mk 1 3070! 36-24 39-21
-----------------------------------------------
61 jf 1 3120 mk 1 3117 36-25 40-21
62 jf 1 3176 jf 1 3166 36-26 40-22
63 jf 1 3215 jf 1 3215* 36-27 40-23
64 jf 1 3305 mk 1 3264 36-28 41-23
65 jf 1 3360 mk 1 3355 36-29 42-23
66 jf 1 3443 jf 1 3451 36-30 42-24
67 mk 1 3482 jf 1 3495 37-30 42-25
68 mk 1 3528 mk 2 3552 38-30 43-25
69 mk 1 3583 jf 1 3578 39-30 43-26
70 mk 1 3631 mk 1 3621 40-30 44-26
71 jf 1 3701 mk 2 3688 40-31 45-26
72 mk 1 3772 jf 1 3755 41-31 45-27
73 jf 1 3821 mk 1 3814 41-32 46-27
74 mk 1 3874 mk 2 3894 42-32 47-27
75 jf 1 3927 jf 2 3929! 42-33 47-28
76 jf 1 3971 mk 1 3976 42-34 48-28
77 jf 1 4066 mk 1 4023 42-35 49-28
78 mk 1 4105 mk 1 4109! 43-35 50-28
79 jf 1 4156 mk 2 4161 43-36 51-28
80 mk 1 4218 jf 1 4219 44-36 51-29
81 jf 1 4315 mk 1 4290 44-37 52-29
82 jf 1 4401 jf 1 4399! 44-38 52-30
83 jf 2 4459 jf 1 4467 44-39 52-31
84 jf 1 4507 jf 1 4507* 44-40 52-32
85 mk 1 4544 jf 1 4571 45-40 52-33
86 jf 1 4610 mk 1 4591 45-41 53-33
87 jf 1 4662 mk 2 4655 45-42 54-33
88 jf 1 4705 mk 2 4714 45-43 55-33
89 mk 1 4752 mk 1 4766 46-43 56-33
90 jf 1 4795 jf 1 4797! 46-44 56-34
91 mk 3 4833 jf 2 4844 47-44 56-35
92 jf 1 4876 jf 1 4888 47-45 56-36
93 mk 1 4934 mk 1 4930! 48-45 57-36
94 mk 1 5006 jf 2 5019 49-45 57-37
95 mk 1 5056 mk 2 5072 50-45 58-37
96 mk 1 5117 mk 1 5117* 51-45 59-37
97 mk 1 5158 mk 1 5152 52-45 60-37
98 mk 1 5210 jf 2 5243 53-45 60-38
99 jf 2 5251 mk 1 5254 53-46 61-38
00 mk 1 5306 jf 2 5291 54-46 61-39
=========================================================
This is a sligtly surprising and much pleasant result
for me. I'm thinking more and more that someday I may
very well end up playing 1 point matches against JF
for money. In fact I may play multipoint matches (up
to 25) also. Let me just give you some stats on 10
matches of 25 points, played as a dry-run... Unless
it interests you, you may skip the details and go to
my final comments at the end. A cube action shown in
parantheses indicate an unnecessary doubling on my
part (risking more for nothing more to gain, just for
the hell of it:). "/od" indicates opponent dropped.
=========================================================
Seed = 1
M# Cntr Game MK-JF Cubes
-- ---- --- ----- -----
01 0000 01 02-00 MK
02 66-00 JF-MK-JF-MK-JF(-MK)
02 0449 01 02-00 JF-MK/od
02 02-02 JF
03 10-02 MK-JF-MK
04 11-02 MK/od
05 11-04 JF
06 11-06 JF
07 19-06 MK-JF-MK
08 67-06 MK-JF-MK-JF
03 0808 01 06-00 MK
02 10-00 MK
03 10-08 MK-JF
04 10-12 JF
05 14-12 MK-JF
06 20-12 MK
07 52-12 MK-JF-MK-JF(-MK)
04 1623 01 04-00 MK
02 04-01 JF/od
03 06-01 MK
04 06-03 JF
05 10-03 MK-JF-MK/od
06 10-07 JF
07 12-07 JF
08 12-11 MK-JF
09 16-11 MK
10 18-11 JF-MK/od
11 18-13 JF
12 20-13
13 20-17 MK-JF
14 24-17 MK
15 25-17
05 2233 01 00-02 JF
02 08-02 MK-JF
03 08-10 MK-JF
04 08-12 JF
06 08-14 JF
07 12-14 MK
08 13-14 MK/od
09 13-15 JF/od
10 17-15 JF-MK
11 21-15 JF-MK
12 29-15 JF-MK-JF
06 2449 01 01-00 MK/od
02 03-00
03 19-00 MK-JF-MK
04 51-00 MK-JF-MK-JF[-MK]
07 2825 01 01-00 MK/od
02 03-00 JF-MK/od
03 05-00 JF-MK/od
04 11-00 MK
05 15-00 MK
06 23-00 MK-JF-MK
07 87-00 MK-JF(-MK)-JF[-MK]
08 3546 01 02-00
02 06-00 MK
03 14-00 MK-JF-MK
04 14-02 MK-JF/od
05 14-06 MK-JF
06 14-08 JF
07 16-08 MK
08 16-12 JF
09 16-14 JF
10 20-14 MK
11 20-18 MK-JF
12 22-18 MK
13 24-18 MK
14 26-18
09 3939 01 04-00 JF-MK
02 04-08 MK-JF
03 06-08
04 22-08 JF-MK-JF-MK
05 22-16 MK-JF
06 86-16 MK-JF(-MK)-JF[-MK]
10 4647 01 00-04 JF-MK-JF/od
02 00-06 JF
03 04-06 JF-MK
04 06-06 MK
05 09-06
06 13-06 MK-JF-MK/od
07 15-06 MK
08 17-06 MK
09 17-18 MK-JF
10 17-19 JF/od
11 17-23 JF
12 17-24 JF/od
13 18-24
14 18-26 MK
MK 5 backgammons 16 gammons 36 regular
JF 1 " 8 " 23 "
=========================================================
As you can see there were a total of 89 games (almost
9 games per match on the average) played, so these were
matches won pretty much fairly and squarely not by just
"jacking up" the cube.
I know I can't maintain such a performance against JF
but I'm also quite confident by now that I won't lose
(or at the worst lose by much) either. So why am I not
playing against JF for money? Because I'm not used to
playing BG for money and I'm afraid that I would play
differently under the pressure and end up losing just
because of that. When discussing similar things a few
weeks ago, some guy had expressed that he wished I had
made the same bad cube decisions, etc. against him
while playing for money. I didn't answer to that post
but my first reaction to it was that if money was
involved I wouldn't play the same way. This reaction
alone indicates that I'm not ready for playing bg for
money.
Even if I find a way to ease myself into it little at
a time, there are a couple other hindrances also. One
is that my responsabilities at the time won't allow me
to travel around as needed (unless JF comes to face me
here where I am:) and worse yet, the doc says I have
to avoid stress... But, who knows? Things may change
and I may at least try it once or twice. For now, I'll
just have to make do with posting in rgb...
MK
Rodrigo Andrade
the foundations to start another interminable 'JF cheats/is not that good/is
overrated!' thread :-)
--
RODRIGO
===========================================================
"All religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man. He has
created an entire system of gods with nothing more than his carnal brain.
Just because he has an ego and cannot accept it, he has had to externalize
it into some great spiritual device he calls 'God.'"
- The Satanic Bible
Anton Szandor LaVey
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Welcome back! Nice effort you got there, man. I just hope you're
>not laying the foundations to start another interminable 'JF
>cheats/is not that good/is overrated!' thread :-)
I could if anybody misses it :) but anything besides
mocking at the ones who argue JF doesn't cheat would
be of no further use since the questions I raised on
the issue haven't been answered as of yet...
Talking about unanswered questions, a few of those
were about Snowie but they were very preliminary and
not directly questioning whether Snowie cheated or
not. If it's going to break the monotony, I guess I
could start further questioning those... :)
Actually, I never had a true chance to experiment
with the SW player because it had expired too fast.
As it's very bulky to load, I hadn't bothered to
try out the latest version but I recently loaded it
and have been playing with it for the past week.
Based on what I observed and for my own purposes, I
came to conclude that it's probably rigged just the
same way as JF may be. Although it allows 9 digit
seed numbers, I think I get deja-vues with its dice
sequences more often than with JF's and I think it's
more predictable in how it will play or what it will
roll next.
I had in the past offered that I would bet money on
guessing JF's future dice rolls, proportionately to
the odds of the called rolls actually happening or
not happening. I think I could make the same offer
much more comfortably about SW's rolls. Please don't
misunderstand me here. I'm not insinuating that SW
cheats by any means. I'm just claiming that I have
psychic powers and think I may be able to make a few
bucks using them... :)
MK
Daniel Murphy
<mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>I had in the past offered that I would bet money on
>guessing JF's future dice rolls, proportionately to
>the odds of the called rolls actually happening or
>not happening. ... I'm just claiming that I have
>psychic powers and think I may be able to make a few
>bucks using them... :)
What odds are you offering?
Ian Shaw
Murat Kalinyaprak wrote in message <7hdqqv$i9...@taisp3.in-tch.com>...
>I had in the past offered that I would bet money on
>guessing JF's future dice rolls, proportionately to
>the odds of the called rolls actually happening or
>not happening. I think I could make the same offer
>much more comfortably about SW's rolls. Please don't
>misunderstand me here. I'm not insinuating that SW
>cheats by any means. I'm just claiming that I have
>psychic powers and think I may be able to make a few
>bucks using them... :)
>
Hi MK,
I believe in all sorts of stuff which is outside the bounds of conventional
Western science, but I'll take you up on this. How about:
You name the frequency with which you can call the roll. I suggest you do
some tests beforehand to get a good feel for your accuracy.
We'll set the odds at half way between that and random - the better you are,
the more you gain; the more mistaken you are, the more I gain.
I nominate a reasonable minimum number of trials, probably based on two or
three standard deviations.
We agree the wager and find a means of conducting the experiment.
Essentially, I watch you play a series of games and you call the roll
whenever you get the vibes.
--
Regards
Ian Shaw (ian on FIBS)
Murat Kalinyaprak
>"Murat Kalinyaprak" wrote:
>>I had in the past offered that I would bet money on
>>guessing JF's future dice rolls, proportionately to
>>the odds of the called rolls actually happening or
>>not happening. ... I'm just claiming that I have
>>psychic powers and think I may be able to make a few
>>bucks using them... :)
>What odds are you offering?
Fair/normal odds. Is it clear that I may try to
predict numbers to come in any variation...? For
example, I may say "JF will now roll..." a double,
double greater than 33, any 2 doubles within the
next 6 rolls, a 4, a 5 or a 2 or a 9, a 61, not
a 3 nor 2, etc. and I may do it for either player
or even both players as many successive events
like "A will leave a blot and B will hit". In the
last case for example, if the odds of it happening
is 1 in 47, you would be betting $47 against my $1
and you won't have the option of not accepting the
bet. Once we start, you will have to go along with
whatever I bet, which may be none or as many as I
want during a game. However you may require that I
bet a predetermined number of times like 100 or 200
(which I may use up in 25 games or 400 games, those
being of any length cubeless/cubeful games). Also,
I'll be free to play my moves as I wish. If I make
an unusual move and bet that I'll get hit and if it
happens, you can't complain that I made it happen
intentionally. I think the idea behind this should
be clear enough but if we get really serious about
it, there may be a need to enumerate as many of the
conditions as possible with whatever else that may
be overlooked to be decided according to the general
intent of the bet..
MK
David desJardins
> Fair/normal odds.
> In the last case for example, if the odds of it happening is 1 in 47,
> you would be betting $47 against my $1
After everything else he has written, I'm not surprised that this is
Murat's idea of "fair odds"!!
David desJardins
hadler
David desJardins wrote in message ...
Daniel Murphy
wrote:
Hmmm. You, Murat, claim that you can predict dice rolls -- some dice
rolls, on some backgammon server -- with a higher frequency than
chance would have it. How much higher you think your predictive
abilities are, you don't know, or don't say. But higher than chance,
in any case. And you're SO confident of your predictive powers that
you're willing to bet on them -- but only at the same odds (give or
take a dollar!) as chance would have it.
What's wrong with this offer?
Let me claim hypothetically that if you flip a coin, I can sometimes
predict with a frequency greater than chance whether the coin will
land heads or tails. And I am SO confident of my predictive powers
that I am will willing to bet on them -- but only at even money odds.
The sound you hear is not a stampede of gambling fools rushing to
accept either offer.
________________________________________________
Daniel Murphy www.cityraccoon.com/
Humlebæk Backgammon Klub www.hbgk.dk/
Raccoon on FIBS www.fibs.com/
Raccoon on GamesGrid too
hadle...@my-deja.com
random then YOU should be willing to wager at the
CORRECT odds for normal random dice.If you are
sure of your feelings about the random dice, then
you should be willing to accept the CORRECT odds
and prove his person wrong....but I suspect that
you will NOT take him up on his offer....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Paul Tanenbaum
As less than 5% of the earth's population have access to computers and
the internet, and these are concentrated among the industrialized
nations, and the elite elsewhere, with highly developed educational
systems, that the users of said computers should possess a high degree
of intelligence, with sound analytical capabilities.
Call this the null hypothesis.
Let's perform a random sampling, in accordance with accepted
statistical methods...
In article <7jal2d$a...@taisp3.in-tch.com>,
"Murat Kalinyaprak" <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
> Daniel Murphy wrote...
>
> >"Murat Kalinyaprak" wrote:
>
> >>I had in the past offered that I would bet money on
> >>guessing JF's future dice rolls, proportionately to
> >>the odds of the called rolls actually happening or
> >>not happening...
>
> >What odds are you offering?
>
> Fair/normal odds... In the
> last case for example, if the odds of it happening
> is 1 in 47, you would be betting $47 against my $1
> and you won't have the option of not accepting the
> bet...
> MK
In article <7jfnbl$f4v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
hadle...@my-deja.com wrote:
> He is saying that since YOU believe the dice are
> random then YOU should be willing to wager at the
> CORRECT odds for normal random dice. If you are
> sure of your feelings about the random dice, then
> you should be willing to accept the CORRECT odds
> and prove this person wrong...
Analysis of the data reveals that the null hypothesis must be
rejected, at a very high confidence level.
---
Paul T.
Daniel Murphy
>He is saying that sice YOU believe the dice are
>random then YOU should be willing to wager at the
>CORRECT odds for normal random dice.If you are
>sure of your feelings about the random dice, then
>you should be willing to accept the CORRECT odds
>and prove his person wrong....but I suspect that
>you will NOT take him up on his offer....
Of course not. Do you get a thrill out of flipping coins on even money
bets? If someone offers to flip coins and CLAIMS he can predict which
side will fall face up more than half the time, do you say: Oh boy!
Let´s start flipping coins at even money odds! Or do you ask: how much
more than half the time do you think your predictions will be correct?
80 times out of a hundred? Then I tell you what, just give me, oh,
70/30 odds and I´ll accept!
Look, suppose I say: let´s play this backgammon position as a
proposition. I predict my side will win 60% of the time. And I
generously offer to play it with you -- oh, but only for even money
odds.
You take a look at the position I'm offering to play. Perhaps you
think I ought to win 60% of the time. You´d be foolish to play at even
money odds. Fair odds would require me to give you 2/10ths of a point
per game. Or perhaps you think I ought to win only 55% of the time, in
which case you´re still a fool to accept my offer at only even money.
Or perhaps you think I ought to win merely 50% of the time, in which
case you wouldn't be foolish to accept my offer, but if I were you I'd
think I would have better ways to spend my time.
He -- Murat -- claims he can predict dice rolls better than random
chance, and offers even money odds. Forgive me for not rushing to
"prove" him wrong. He´s offering to make an even money bet and
expecting to have the best of it. YOU accept his offer, not me!
Curiously Murat COULD choose to make it a fair but boring bet simply
by choosing his numbers -- not with some abracadabra mental magic --
but randomly. And why would I be interested in an even money bet? For
the fun of it? No thanks.
Murat Kalinyaprak
>"hadler" wrote:
>>The CORRECT amounts would be betting $46 to your $1
>>David desJardins wrote in message ...
>>>Murat Kalinyaprak <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
>>>> Fair/normal odds.
>>>> In the last case for example, if the odds of it happening
>>>> is 1 in 47, you would be betting $47 against my $1
>>> After everything else he has written, I'm not surprised
>>> that this is Murat's idea of "fair odds"!!
First, thanks to "handler" for correcting a common small
mistake I do quite often while wording odds and money to
bet. Also thanks to "David desJardins" for his brainless
comment for it may helped "handler" notice the $1 error.
> Hmmm. You, Murat, claim that you can predict dice rolls --
> some dice rolls, on some backgammon server -- with a higher
> frequency than chance would have it. How much higher you
> think your predictive abilities are, you don't know, or
> don't say.
I never tried to measure how well I could guess on FIBS
but I talked about it extensively in the past that even
when I based my checker decisions considerably on this,
I was still winning (at least enough that my rating was
going upwards however slowly).
With JF, I had done some dry runs as early as almost a
year ago and had reported here that I had neared about
70% success. Whether I can maintain that is to be seen
but there is no secrets or "hustling" on my part...
> But higher than chance, in any case. And you're SO confident
> of your predictive powers that you're willing to bet on them
> -- but only at the same odds (give or take a dollar!) as
> chance would have it.
> What's wrong with this offer?
Nothing. The main point here is that I believe JF's
dice rolls are predictable. The idea of betting money
on it only arises from the fact that some people won't
believe anybody unless they are willing to back their
words with money. Although making money by betting on
such things is not a goal for me, I had joked in my
previous article that I would like to make a few bucks
using my special powers:). I certainly don't have any
intentions of handing out free/easy money...
> Let me claim hypothetically that if you flip a coin, I can
> sometimes predict with a frequency greater than chance
> whether the coin will land heads or tails. And I am SO
> confident of my predictive powers that I am will willing
> to bet on them -- but only at even money odds.
> The sound you hear is not a stampede of gambling fools
> rushing to accept either offer.
Well, the world is obviously full of gambling fools who
rush to casinos, etc. well knowing that the odds are in
favor of the house and smart people take advantage of
such human self-deception. But this is besides the point
here because my approach to it is that if JF's dice is
random and if I can't guess any more than random (50%),
then nobody wins or loses and nobody gets hurt. Someone
will get hurt (i.e. pay for it) only if he/she chooses
to insist on being wrong (if he/she is indeed wrong)...
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
> Murat Kalinyaprak wrote <7hdqqv$i9...@taisp3.in-tch.com>...
>>I had in the past offered that I would bet money on
>>guessing JF's future dice rolls, proportionately to
>>the odds of the called rolls actually happening or
>>not happening. I think I could make the same offer
>>much more comfortably about SW's rolls...
>I believe in all sorts of stuff which is outside the
>bounds of conventional Western science, but I'll take
>you up on this. How about: You name the frequency with
>which you can call the roll. I suggest you do some tests
>beforehand to get a good feel for your accuracy. We'll
>set the odds at half way between that and random - the
>better you are, the more you gain; the more mistaken you
>are, the more I gain.
Ian, I just saw this old message of yours in Dejanews.
You were making the same argument as Daniel Murphy is
making in one of his messages I read a few minutes ago.
I'll just respond to both of you at once. Sorry, but
you guys don't get the essence of this bet. You, among
and along countless other people, argue that JF's dice
rolls are random. The odds I propose are just as safe
for you since if you are right you won't lose anything.
But if you are wrong, then the more you are wrong the
more you will lose (up to an unknown percentage). I'm
not betting on this for the sake of gambling and making
or losing money. If you want to make money at gambling,
you can take a trip to Las Vegas... I'm offering you a
safe bet where if you are right you have nothing to
worry about losing. I don't want to hear about how
precious your, Daniel's or anybody else's time is to
waste by betting on odds that won't make you money
even if you are right, because if you are right, as a
result of this betting you'll win the priceless prize
of having proven to yourself that JF's dice is really
random... :) I think you guys owe yourselves at least
this much or else stop defending/arguing that JF's
dice is random... If my offering such a bet prevents
just one loud-ass, (this is not aimed at you, BTW),
from pouncing on and harsly scolding another person
who may come to express in this forum his/her views
about JF's dice not being random, that will be a good
enough prize for me...
MK
Daniel Murphy
<mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>With JF, I had done some dry runs as early as almost a
>year ago and had reported here that I had neared about
>70% success. Whether I can maintain that is to be seen
>but there is no secrets or "hustling" on my part...
70%! Wow! What special powers you must have!
>The main point here is that I believe JF's
>dice rolls are predictable. The idea of betting money
>on it only arises from the fact that some people won't
>believe anybody unless they are willing to back their
>words with money.>
Here's your chance to back your words with equally big money. Read on!
>Well, the world is obviously full of gambling fools who
>rush to casinos, etc. well knowing that the odds are in
>favor of the house and smart people take advantage of
>such human self-deception. But this is besides the point
>here because my approach to it is that if JF's dice is
>random and if I can't guess any more than random (50%),
>then nobody wins or loses and nobody gets hurt. Someone
> will get hurt (i.e. pay for it) only if he/she chooses
> to insist on being wrong (if he/she is indeed wrong)...
I don´t believe that you can predict JellyFish's rolls 70% of the
time. And I am so disbelieving that I am willing to take merely 1:1
odds on your 7:3 predictive powers.
So here's what can do:
I have a copy of JellyFish. I'll play a 25 point match against
JellyFish, letting JellyFish roll the dice. I´ll set the seed and
counter and keep track of the settings. I may choose to change the
seed and/or counter at any time, and I will keep track of the changes.
Since seed and counter are identical on all copies of the same version
of JellyFish, the "next" roll can therefore be easily verified by
independent observers.
To speed things along, we'll both connect to an online server and
communicate in chat mode.
I will report to you my roll. You will then immediately predict
JellyFish´s roll. Actually, if you want to predict my roll too, fine.
And if your "special powers" are dependent on board position, I´ll
report to you my and JellyFish´s moves also. And you can predict a
double or any unordered pair. For example, if you predict JellyFish
will roll "26", you win if the roll is 62 also.
Now, you say you can predict JellyFish´s rolls 70% of the time. Like
I said, I am so disbelieving of this claim that I will take 1:1 odds
on your 7:3 predictive powers. If your claim is true, and we bet,
say, $1000 a roll, after 100 rolls you should be ahead about $40,000.
So how much money have you to put where your mouth is? Because I'm
quite certain that whatever amount you name will not be enough to
cover everyone who wants a piece of MY action.
So what's it gonna be, boy, yes or no? And don't let your meatloaf.
hadler
odds for random dice rolls. If Daniel is scared to do this then just forget
about him, and from his responses to this thread that would not be a large
loss.
Murat Kalinyaprak wrote in message <7jl3gn$1p...@taisp3.in-tch.com>...
Phill Skelton
>
> The odds I propose are just as safe
> for you since if you are right you won't lose anything.
> But if you are wrong, then the more you are wrong the
> more you will lose (up to an unknown percentage).
The point is that they have absolutely nothing useful to gain by
accepting those odds. If they are right, then congratulations,
what they already assumed was true has been confirmed, and you
haven't lost anything by being wrong. If they are wrong they lose and
you gain.
So at worst you break even and at best win some money, while the
best they can do is break even, and might lose money. Not much
incentive for anyone to take you up on the offer is it, especially
since no-one is that bothered whether you think the dice are
non-random or not.
It's hardly case of putting your money where your mouth is since it
involves no risk to you at all.
OTOH if you offer odds halfway between what you think you can predict
and truly random dice, then both sides have as much to lose or gain
by the deal, and someone might just take you up on it.
Phill
David Montgomery
time (wow!). But most people don't think the drug works at all,
and that people taking the drug will be cured with the same
probability as those taking a placebo, about 2.78%.
The government decides to investigate the company for fraudulent
advertising, and ultimately new extensive tests of the drug are
commissioned. All the while the company continues to advertise,
claiming extraordinary powers for its drug.
Now, the drug company maintains that the proper test is whether
the drug cures at a 2.78% or greater rate. After all, it says,
this is the normally expected cure rate, and the drug will only
pass this threshold if it does some good.
The government, on the other hand, thinks that the company
shouldn't be allowed to go unpenalized if the drug's success
rate is substantially below 70%. After all, that's what they
claimed; that's what they used to sell the drug.
Who do you think is right?
---
Because of all the publicity surround the case, there comes to
be wide public interest in the case. Perhaps inevitably,
people start betting on the ultimate test results. As interest
increases, the bookies and casinos get in on it. They have to
set a line, so that people can bet.
Do you think they set it at 70%?
Do you think they set it at 2.78%?
David Montgomery
mo...@cs.umd.edu
monty on FIBS and GG
Chuck Bower
>MK...You are EXACTLY correct. ALL the bets should be made at the CORRECT
>odds for random dice rolls. If Daniel is scared to do this then just forget
>about him, and from his responses to this thread that would not be a large
>loss.
"MK...EXACTLY correct?" I'd better reread that post. There's a first
time for everything.
One day when I was a kid, my Dad offered me a betting game: "Heads
I win; tails you lose." Murat's offer is somewhat analogous to "Heads I
win; tails we tie." Murat can never lose. The WORST he can do is tie.
Daniel can never win. The BEST he can do is tie. If that sounds fair,
I'm glad you don't live in my neighborhood.
As far as the statement "...just forget about (Daniel), and from his
responses to this thread that would not be a large loss", that may be
appropriate action for closed minded people not interested in learning more
about backgammon. For most of the rest of us, following such advice would
be a considerable loss.
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
helmet
Marat is only saying that snowie does not play a fair game
and that in critical conditions is more likely to throw a "lucky"
dice than is theoretically likely. He only offered to involve money
so that people would see he is serious about his claims.
helmet
hadle...@my-deja.com
Mathematically Challenged and cannot grasp the idea that the bets
should be made at the CORRECT odds for fair dice. it sounds VERY MUCH
like they are scared that you MAY BE CORRECT. I believe you are
correct. Thank you for standing up to be counted.
Claes Thornberg
> MK...You are EXACTLY correct. ALL the bets should be made at the CORRECT
> odds for random dice rolls. If Daniel is scared to do this then just forget
> about him, and from his responses to this thread that would not be a large
> loss.
>
Hadler, are you on some drug?
The odds should be set so that Murat could lose if he is wrong (and
win if he is right). As you (and Murat of course) want to have it,
Murat can never lose. If he is wrong, if he predicts as if the rolls
were random, or indeed if his predictions are even worse, he will lose
nothing. On the other hand, if he for some reason would predict
better than what might be expected, even just slightly so, he will
win. I can understand that Murat wants to bet at these very favorable
odds, but I can't understand how anyone can think he's exactly
correct.
And you must be really spaced out if you want to forget about Daniel
and his posts. Daniel Murphy is one of the better contributors to
this newsgroup.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Claes Thornberg Internet: cla...@it.kth.se
Dept. of Teleinformatics URL: NO WAY!
KTH/Electrum 204 Voice: +46 8 752 1377
164 40 Kista Fax: +46 8 751 1793
Sweden
Claes Thornberg
> MK...once again...you are exactly on point. The others are obviously
> Mathematically Challenged and cannot grasp the idea that the bets
> should be made at the CORRECT odds for fair dice. it sounds VERY MUCH
> like they are scared that you MAY BE CORRECT. I believe you are
> correct. Thank you for standing up to be counted.
>
Hadler, I ask you once again: are you on some drug? It's the second
time you post almost the identical drivel. You can post your
statements about Murat being correct from how many different accounts
you like, it doesn't become true anyway.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Hadler, in the future please follow the advice above and learn what
you don't know. In this case the way to determine correct odds. And
if you read it carefully you should only share what you know, not what
you believe!
Claes Thornberg
> I'm offering you a
> safe bet where if you are right you have nothing to
> worry about losing.
Murat, the only one this bet is safe for is you, as I believe many
other posters have tried to point out to you. Even though I believe
your place in my kill file is well earned, I thought that you had at
least some common sense.
> I don't want to hear about how
> precious your, Daniel's or anybody else's time is to
> waste by betting on odds that won't make you money
> even if you are right, because if you are right, as a
> result of this betting you'll win the priceless prize
> of having proven to yourself that JF's dice is really
> random... :)
Hmm, you even know that you are the only one who can earn money at
those odds. But still, why should they want to win this priceless
prize? They are risking money to win it, while you are not risking
anything to lose it. Heck, even I could only win money at those
odds.
If you are so sure that the dice are not random, why don't you put
some money on the line, instead of just saying that everyone who
doesn't believe in your predictive powers should do that. In one of
your earlier posts in this thread you mentioned the figure 70% when
talking about how well you could predict JF rolls in some situations.
> I think you guys owe yourselves at least
> this much or else stop defending/arguing that JF's
> dice is random... If my offering such a bet prevents
> just one loud-ass, (this is not aimed at you, BTW),
> from pouncing on and harsly scolding another person
> who may come to express in this forum his/her views
> about JF's dice not being random, that will be a good
> enough prize for me...
>
Murat, you owe it to yourself to put your money where your mouth is.
For the last year, I believe, you have come up with unsupported claims
of JF's dice not being random. You have even claimed you are able to
predict the rolls of JF, in some situations even to the degree of
70%. Still you are too afraid of putting your money where you mouth
is. Instead you want odds where you can't lose any money. Daniel and
others have offered you deals which you should jump at, if you really
where that sure of your ability/claims. You could make heaps of money.
Regards,
CT
Rodrigo Andrade
>bets?
Hardcore gamblers surely do. That's what casino games are all about. You bet
even money.
Patti Beadles
Rodrigo Andrade <gammonut@_R_E_M_O_V_E_worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Hardcore gamblers surely do. That's what casino games are all about. You bet
>even money.
In what casino? 99.xx% of all casino bets have a house advantage.
You'll occasionally find one that doesn't (odds bets on craps are even
money, but they're tied to -EV bets so the overall result is -EV), and
every now and then something weird slips in like a slot jackpot that
makes it +EV, but that's nearly it. How do you think they pay for the
lights?
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles | He's a brilliant lunatic and you can't tell
pat...@netcom.com | which way he'll jump... you can't dissect him,
http://www.gammon.com/ | predict him-- which of course means he's not a
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | lunatic at all. [From the musical Chess.]
Rodrigo Andrade
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat Kalinyaprak wrote:
>>With JF, I had done some dry runs as early as almost a
>>year ago and had reported here that I had neared about
>>70% success. Whether I can maintain that is to be seen
>>but there is no secrets or "hustling" on my part...
>70%! Wow! What special powers you must have!
You guys' problem may be that I don't have such powers.
>Here's your chance to back your words with equally big
>money. Read on!
Never been interested in winning money by gambling but
I'll read on to see what you've got up your sleeve.
>>random and if I can't guess any more than random (50%),
>>then nobody wins or loses and nobody gets hurt. Someone
>>will get hurt (i.e. pay for it) only if he/she chooses
>>to insist on being wrong (if he/she is indeed wrong)...
>I don´t believe that you can predict JellyFish's rolls 70%
>of the time. And I am so disbelieving that I am willing to
>take merely 1:1 odds on your 7:3 predictive powers.
Fine, if you don't believe it then I give up. On the
issue of predicting JF's rolls 70% of the time, you
win and I'm the loser...
>So here's what can do:
...[pointless blabber deleted]...
>So what's it gonna be, boy, yes or no? And don't let your
>meatloaf.
Your starting to call me "boy", etc. is perhaps the
indication that deep down you already knew you lost
on this issue. That is, by the same argument above
that applies to me, since you declined to bet that
JF's rolls couldn't be predicted any more often than
50% of the time, I win and you are the loser. Time
for you to swallow hard... :(
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>In <375e8...@news.richnet.net> hadler wrote:
>>MK...You are EXACTLY correct. ALL the bets should be made at
>>the CORRECT odds for random dice rolls. If Daniel is scared
>>to do this then just forget about him, and from his responses
>>to this thread that would not be a large loss.
>"MK...EXACTLY correct?" I'd better reread that post.
>There's a first time for everything.
I wouldn't have guessed that there would be hope
even for you someday...
>One day when I was a kid, my Dad offered me a betting game:
>"Heads I win; tails you lose." Murat's offer is somewhat
>analogous to "Heads I win; tails we tie."
Nice heart-warming introduction... I like it...
>Murat can never lose. The WORST he can do is tie. Daniel
>can never win. The BEST he can do is tie.
You being one of the masters of satire in here,
I'm sure you hadn't believed my past claims that
I had extra powers of predicting dice rolls...
Actually, the smileys probably would have given
it away even to ones most vulnerable to satire.
So now, if we accept as true that JF's dice rolls
are random (i.e. can't be predicted more than 50%
of the time) and that I can correctly "predict"
rolls only randomly (i.e. no more than 50% of the
time); please repeat after me:
Murat can never win. The BEST he can do is tie.
Daniel can never lose. The WORST he can do is tie.
Did you get that "Mr. Rocket-Scientist"...?
>If that sounds fair, I'm glad you don't live in my
>neighborhood.
Why don't you make known where you live just in
case some of us may want to avoid the area for
fear that you may be contagious...
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat Kalinyaprak wrote:
>> The odds I propose are just as safe
>> for you since if you are right you won't lose anything.
>> But if you are wrong, then the more you are wrong the
>> more you will lose (up to an unknown percentage).
>The point is that they have absolutely nothing useful to
>gain by accepting those odds.
Depends on what one considers "useful"...
>If they are right, then congratulations, what they already
>assumed was true has been confirmed, and you haven't lost
>anything by being wrong.
I think that would be worth quite a bit to everybody
who hasn't minded wasting countless hours discussing
this thing here for weeks, months (and perhaps years
including the time before I joined)...
>If they are wrong they lose and you gain.
This is the whole point. If they knew that they were
right based on some facts, somebody among them whose
time is not worth gold would have been willing to
waste a little more time to settle this by taking a
no-risk bet. Those loud asses who take every occasion
to pounce on and scold anybody who says anything about
JF or SW being rigged/cheating should have enough proof
to justify their abrasively hostile behaviour, shouldn't
they...? And if they do, why wouldn't they be willing to
waste a little time betting against me instead of wasting
just as much or more time posting blabberful articles in
this newsgroup for days and days...?
>So at worst you break even and at best win some money, while
>the best they can do is break even, and might lose money. Not
>much incentive for anyone to take you up on the offer is it,
Though not completely true, this much is true enough to
move on with it...
>especially since no-one is that bothered whether you think
>the dice are non-random or not.
If they aren't bothered with what I think, then the next
time somebody else expresses his thoughts about JF's dice,
they shouldn't be bothered with what that person thinks
either and they should keep quiet, no...?
>It's hardly case of putting your money where your mouth is
>since it involves no risk to you at all.
This is not and has never been a matter of me putting my
money where my mouth is but has been, is and will be a
matter of them putting their money where there loud mouths
(or their loud wherevers they prefer) are...
I apologize if my language is getting a little too strong
for you or some others. I guess I'm getting just a little
frustrated after all...
>OTOH if you offer odds halfway between what you think you
>can predict and truly random dice, then both sides have as
>much to lose or gain by the deal, and someone might just
>take you up on it.
Heh, heh... Have you folks ever heard of "hustling"...?
Actually, I can predict JF's rolls 85% of the time but
I was hustling you all by saying I can predict only 70%
of the time... :) Tsk, tsk... Will any of self-decievers
here be of any challenge for me someday...?
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>MK...once again...you are exactly on point. The others are
>obviously Mathematically Challenged and cannot grasp the
>idea that the bets should be made at the CORRECT odds for
>fair dice. it sounds VERY MUCH like they are scared that
>you MAY BE CORRECT. I believe you are correct. Thank you
>for standing up to be counted.
It's encouraging to see that at least one or two others
in this newsgroup (or should I say chicken coop?) have
enough brains+guts to voice support if not to make the
initial step in the "RIGHT" direction. Thanks...
MK
VSG
Murat Kalinyaprak <mu...@compuplus.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
7jal2d$a...@taisp3.in-tch.com...
> Daniel Murphy wrote...
>
> >"Murat Kalinyaprak" wrote:
>
> >>guessing JF's future dice rolls, proportionately to
> >>the odds of the called rolls actually happening or
> >>psychic powers and think I may be able to make a few
> >>bucks using them... :)
>
Hmmm.
I'm starting to think that Murat is loving every minute of all this attention
and outrage. It is clear to me that he knows EXACTLY that the odds and bets he
is offering is laughable and that it gets up "peoples goat". He is a master of
double speak and has an uncanny way of ALMOST making some of his opinions seem
reasonable. Alas close inspection of the facts and even closer inspection of his
double speak confirms the flaws in his thinking. A prime example being this
"Heads I win, Tails we draw" concept ;)
Nooo, I think to use an English expression, "Murat is pulling our plonker (or
leg :)."
As for Hadler.. At least Murat has his own theory. Rather than jumping on
someone elses coat tails and saying "Yeah! HE'S RIGHT.. DANIELS wrong.. Don't
like Daniel" garbage. How about contributing something original and of worth. I
suspect you're going to have egg on your face when Murat turns round and says
the equivalent of "April fools". For the record, Daniel Murphy has contributed
more to this Newsgroup and backgammon than you could ever hope to achieve riding
on others peoples coat tails and opinions my friend.
I must say Murat isn't on my kill list, as he is probably one of few who has the
guts to come out with opinions which don't conform with majority thinking.
Although I swear half the time he does it for the sake on controversy itself
rather than deep set views or opinions :)
regards
Alan Webb
Webby's Backgammon Site
http://marina.fortunecity.com/frog/303/BGHome.htm
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat Kalinyaprak writes:
>> I'm offering you a safe bet where if you are right you
>> have nothing to worry about losing.
>Murat, the only one this bet is safe for is you,
This statement would be true only AND ONLY if you
accept that JF's dice is not random. If JF's dice
is random (and unless I have some unhuman powers)
there is no way I can win... Don't worry, sooner
or later you all will get it...
>as I believe many other posters have tried to point out
>to you.
Doesn't matter how many of you there are, you are
all wrong. The bad thing is, the more of you there
are, the sadder a day it is for the human species...
>Even though I believe your place in my kill file is well
>earned, I thought that you had at least some common sense.
People who talk about their kill-files publicly
really irk me. Others like you may but I sure don't
give a shit about whose kill-file I may be in nor
who else may be in who else's kill-file. Like some
other people who had earlier found refuge from their
own hopelessness by putting me in their kill-files,
maybe you were born to put me in your kill-file some
day... :( Blame it on nature, destiny, whatever...
>> I don't want to hear about how
>> precious your, Daniel's or anybody else's time is to
>> waste by betting on odds that won't make you money
>> even if you are right, because if you are right, as a
>> result of this betting you'll win the priceless prize
>> of having proven to yourself that JF's dice is really
>> random... :)
>Hmm, you even know that you are the only one who can
>earn money at those odds.
Like I said above, I can't earn anything unless JF's
dice is rigged. Either retract/correct your statement
or accept that deep down you may not be so sure that
JF's dice isn't rigged...
>They are risking money to win it,
Do you mean JF's dice is rigged...? If not, please
explain how is it that they are risking anything...?
>while you are not risking anything to lose it.
This is correct.
>Heck, even I could only win money at those odds.
You couldn't unless JF's dice was rigged. Keep
repeating this and eventually you will hear what
you are saying and understand what I have been
saying...
Eventully, you guys will shoot yourselves in the
foot (or better yet shoot each other) on this
subject. This is the only way I can get anything
accross to some of you, as some of you seem to
have developed a mental block to resist everything
I say.
>If you are so sure that the dice are not random, why
>don't you put some money on the line, instead of just
>saying that everyone who doesn't believe in your
>predictive powers should do that. In one of your
>earlier posts in this thread you mentioned the figure
>70% when talking about how well you could predict JF
>rolls in some situations.
I certainly didn't have to mention anything about
how well I can predict JF's dice and if I had had
any intentions of making money by betting on this
I would have made sure that I wouldn't specify a
number or would specify a misleading low number.
My claim/bet is not that I can predict JF's rolls
N% of the time but that I can predict more than
50% of the time. The reason nobody is willing to
take this no-risk bet because they don't really
believe (have proof) that JF's dice is random
and they see (or feel inside:) a risk of losing.
>> I think you guys owe yourselves at least
>> this much or else stop defending/arguing that JF's
>> dice is random...
>Murat, you owe it to yourself to put your money where
>your mouth is. For the last year, I believe, you have
>come up with unsupported claims of JF's dice not being
>random. You have even claimed you are able to predict
>the rolls of JF, in some situations even to the degree
>of 70%. Still you are too afraid of putting your money
>where you mouth is.
Let me repeat an argument I just made in another
article. Ok, I would owe myself to put my money
where my mouth is to back up my claim that I can
predict JF's dice 70% of the time. Well, I can't
do it. I accept defeat; I lost on that. Are you
happy...?
Now, it's you guys' turn. Either put your money
where your mouth is to back up your claim that
JF's dice is random (i.e. it can't be predicted
more often than 50% of the time) or have the
decency to do what I did above; which is to accept
your own defeat on this... Enough said...
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>"hadler" <had...@richnet.net> writes:
>> MK...You are EXACTLY correct. ALL the bets should be made
>> at the CORRECT odds for random dice rolls. If Daniel is
>> scared to do this then just forget about him, and from his
>> responses to this thread that would not be a large loss.
>Hadler, are you on some drug?
Cleas, sorry to say this, but I think you are making
a fool out of yourself trying to make fun of somebody
visibly smarter than you...
>The odds should be set so that Murat could lose if he is wrong
Why...? The issue is whether JF's dice is rigged or
not. If I claim that I can predict JF's dice 70% of
the time but can only predict 57% of the time, would
that prove to you that JF's dice is random...? The
magic number here is 50% and if you can't see that,
it's a pity... :(
>Murat can never lose.
If JF's dice is random, Murat can never win either.
This should be easy to understand, no...?
>If he is wrong, if he predicts as if the rolls were
>random, or indeed if his predictions are even worse,
>he will lose nothing.
I can understand I won't lose if I predict as good
as random but can't understand how I wouldn't lose
even if my predictions were even worse [than random]
(I assume meaning less than 50%)...?
>On the other hand, if he for some reason would predict
>better than what might be expected, even just slightly
>so, he will win.
"For some reason"...? What may that "some reason"
be...? My psychic powers...? :)
MK
Per Torstein Rřine
> >Murat can never lose.
>
> If JF's dice is random, Murat can never win either.
> This should be easy to understand, no...?
>
> >If he is wrong, if he predicts as if the rolls were
> >random, or indeed if his predictions are even worse,
> >he will lose nothing.
>
> I can understand I won't lose if I predict as good
> as random but can't understand how I wouldn't lose
> even if my predictions were even worse [than random]
> (I assume meaning less than 50%)...?
If we assume that the odds are calculated as for random rolls:
If the rolls ARE truly random, then by BY DEFINITION of randomness,
there is no way that any prediction you can make (disregarding looking
into the future...) can have, in the long run, any correlation with
the rolls. It does not matter what the predictions are. Your
predictions can be systematic (for example double six every time), or
truly random, or anything between. In any case, you will neither win
or lose in the long run. It is IMPOSSIBLE in this case to lose money
in the long run.
If the rolls are NOT truly random, your predictions can acheive
positive correlation (more right than random guesses), zero
correlation (random guesses), or negative correlation (more wrong than
random guesses), which makes you earn money, lose money, or break
even.
So, basically, you are asking people to pay you to show that the rolls
are not random. The fact that noone wants to pay you for this does not
mean that they think it will be expensive. It's simply not
interesting, because there's nothing in it for anyone but you.
--
Per Torstein Roeine email: pe...@ifi.uio.no
University of Oslo mail: Per Torstein Roeine
Department of Informatics Biermannsgate 8B
Microelectronics group N-0473 OSLO, NORWAY
Rodrigo Andrade
>seed and/or counter at any time
It seems to me like you're a tad afraid of Murat's so-called "special
powers." If you're so confident about JF's random dice, why do you even care
about changing the seed/counter?
Murat can't use his JF to look up the rolls ahead of time, since you'll not
tell him the seed/counter you're using.
Rodrigo Andrade
>take this no-risk bet because they don't really
>believe (have proof) that JF's dice is random
>and they see (or feel inside:) a risk of losing.
No, dammit! The reason nobody is willing to take you up is because if their
claim is invalid (if we find out you can really predict 50+% of JF rolls)
they lose money, whereas if your claim is invalid (if we find out you can't
predict JF rolls) you don't lose shit!
Of course you're not stupid enough to make a bet where you could lose money.
If you're so sure you can predict the damn rolls, why don't you put some
money in? It's as simple as this: if you can predict 50+% of the rolls,
Daniel (or whoever) pays you whatever stake you guys agree on. If you can't
predict 50+% of the rolls, you pay Daniel the stakes.
At least 3 different people have tried to explain you that, but your
"special powers" are keeping you from getting it straight.
spcor
<gammonut@_R_E_M_O_V_E_worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Do you get a thrill out of flipping coins on even money
> >bets?
>
> even money.
>
There's some inexactness in your statements here that needs to be
addressed. Casinos do have bets that pay out even money, but the even
money that they pay out is not true odds. That's significant!
The most noticeable example is the black/red or odd/even bet at the
roulette table. These bets pay even money. But on the roulette wheel
there are, besides black and red or odd and even, also one or two green
slots (numerically zero or double zero). So you get paid even money on
a non-even bet. You are still at a disadvantage.
The difference between the true odds and the odds the casino actually
gives you is called the house advantage. This difference is where the
casinos make their profit. It's also the reason why in the long run you
will always lose more than you win if you keep on gambling in a casino.
You gamble; the casino doesn't.
One casino bet does pay out true odds. It's called the odds bet in
craps. But to make the odds bet, you are required to first make a
regular bet which does not pay true odds. So you still haven't
eliminated the house advantage entirely. The odds are always stacked
against you.
Enjoy!
Dan
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
Gary Wong
> Claes Thornberg wrote news:yvkhfog...@cuchulain.it.kth.se...
>
> Why...? The issue is whether JF's dice is rigged or
> not. If I claim that I can predict JF's dice 70% of
> the time but can only predict 57% of the time, would
> that prove to you that JF's dice is random...? The
> magic number here is 50% and if you can't see that,
> it's a pity... :(
The magic number's 50%, is it? Great. Fair odds on a 50% random event are
1:1, so I'm willing to accept your wager at those odds. I hope the following
conditions are acceptable to you:
1) We'll have a mutually trusted third party run a copy of Jellyfish on
his/her machine. We will play either a single money game, a single
cubeless game, or a 1-point match (your choice). The third party will
report dice rolls and JF's moves to you and I via e-mail. He/she will
choose the seed/counter him/herself before the game starts, but will
not disclose their values to anybody until the game is over (at which point
those with a copy of JF can replay the game with the known seed/counter
to verify that the rolls and moves were reported fairly). We will agree
on the version and level of JF to be used before play starts. You will
report your moves to the third party via e-mail, and may play however
you choose (whether you win or lose is not important; you are free to
make plays that you feel are likely to cause JF to generate predictable
rolls if you wish). The seed/counter will not be changed once play
starts.
2) Before every roll (yours and JF's), you will report your prediction
of what that roll will be to me and the third party. If your prediction
is correct, I will pay you one unit of the stakes we agree on (I am
willing to accept any stakes from $1 to $100 US per roll). If your
prediction is incorrect, you pay me one unit instead. These 1:1 stakes
are fair for a 50% trial. No prediction nor stakes will apply to the
opening roll, nor rolls where the player is on the bar against a closed
board.
3) You must predict the numbers on both dice. I'm willing to be
generous, giving you the benefit of the doubt and also paying you
if you get the numbers of the dice correct but the order wrong (eg. if
you predict "36" and JF rolls "63", I will pay you one unit for that
roll).
4) The amount owed will be recorded and will accumulate until the end of
the game, at which point payment will be made. If at any point during
the game you come to owe me $50 or more, I may require you to place
the amount you owe me at the time in escrow. Naturally, I am willing to
comply with any similar request that you might make.
5) If either of us come to the conclusion that you are or are not able to
predict JF's dice rolls before the game concludes, we may terminate the
game early by admitting defeat, paying whatever amount is due at the
time, and posting the results of the game and our conclusions about your
ability to this newsgroup. (This is an experiment to learn about JF's
dice and not a money-making scheme, after all. The intent is that whoever
of us is wrong will end up wiser, not poorer.)
6) If any irregularities are found in the results of the game (in that the
version and level of JF agreed upon does not produce moves and/or rolls
identical to those reported during play) then the entire game will be
disregarded and no payment will be made.
7) You must perform the predictions entirely on your own and not consult
any other person or use computer assistance when predicting JF's rolls.
I hope you find the description above reasonable. If you would prefer
some other conditions, please follow up to this article and perhaps we can
come to some other agreement.
If we do agree to play, might I further suggest that we donate 10% of the
final payment to whoever we choose to be the third party in recognition
for their part in playing this game.
I am also interested in your or anybody else's ability to predict
pseudo-random numbers derived from generator's other than JF's. Please
let me know if you are interested in conducting this experiment with other
PRNGs of my choice (the conditions in those cases will be that I publish
the source code for the PRNG in advance and the third party will use this
generator to choose the dice and not JF. If we play this way then I am
willing to relax condition 7, and you may use any assistance you like to
predict the dice rolls except disclosure of the seed by the third party
before the game is over).
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary Wong, Department of Computer Science, University of Arizona
ga...@cs.arizona.edu http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~gary/
hadler
do you think I should have said? He is being attacked relentlessly by people
in this newsgroup and I wanted to PUBLICLY announce my support for his ideas
on this topic. ExCUUUUUUUUSE me if you did not like my response.
VSG wrote in message <7jqi75$44o$1...@news05.btx.dtag.de>...
hadler
>N% of the time but that I can predict more than
>take this no-risk bet because they don't really
>believe (have proof) that JF's dice is random
>and they see (or feel inside:) a risk of losing
>Now, it's you guys' turn. Either put your money
>where your mouth is to back up your claim that
>JF's dice is random (i.e. it can't be predicted
>more often than 50% of the time) or have the
>decency to do what I did above; which is to accept
>your own defeat on this... Enough said...
>MK
MK...At the risk of being flamed again ( and I can take the heat) let me say
that you have gotten right to the heart of this topic AGAIN with the above
statement. They ARE scared that you may be right and that the JF dice are
rigged. Keep up the good fight!
hadler
>If the rolls ARE truly random, then by BY DEFINITION of randomness,
>there is no way that any prediction you can make (disregarding looking
>into the future...) can have, in the long run, any correlation with
>the rolls. It does not matter what the predictions are. Your
>predictions can be systematic (for example double six every time), or
>truly random, or anything between. In any case, you will neither win
>or lose in the long run. It is IMPOSSIBLE in this case to lose money
>in the long run.
When you say "It is IMPOSSIBLE in this case to lose money in the long run"
you are falling into one of the classic traps in probability....the idea
that in the long run things will even out. This is disproved by the Law of
Large Nimbers which states that as the number of trials INCREASES the %
fluctuation from the expected will decrease but the ACTUAL fluctuations will
INCREASE.
It IS POSSIBLE to lose money in this case in the long run. Flipping a coin a
million times will NOT produce a 50/50 split in ACTUAL numbers (it could but
it would be EXTREMELY unlikely). What it will produce is a % split that is
VERYY close to 50/50, but the ACTUAL amount of deviation from the expected
mean of 500 thousand heads for instance could be quite large and still fall
within accepted levels of # of standard deviations from the mean. So
INCREASING the number of trials DOES LOWER the % difference between heads
and tails but INCREASES the expected ACTUAL deviation. SO it is VERY
possible to lose money in the long run on an EVEN bet. Example: 10000
flips... expected number of heads is 5000 and the standard deviation is 50
....with 1 million flips the expected number of heads is 500 thousand with a
standard deviation of 500. The important point to learn from this
is....being 1 standard deviation from the expected 5000 flips in the 10,000
flip trial is 50/5000 or 1% ....being 1 standard deviation from the expected
500 thousand flips in the million flip trial is 500/500,000 or 1/10 of 1 %.
Notice that INCREASING the number of flips (or rolls in a backgamon example)
has LOWERED the % deviation from the expected result from 1% to 1/10 of 1 %
meaning we are coming closer to what we expect to happen % wise, but the
ACTUAL deviations from the expected number have become MUCH LARGER...in this
example being 1 standard deviation from expected has placed you 50 heads
behind and in the million flip example you are 500 flips behind. Now 2
standard deviations from expected is NOT very unusual and in this case you
would have 1000 ,(2 times 500), less heads than you expected. this would
place you 2000 bets behind someone betting on tails. And this is with a
PERFECTLY FAIR COIN. So, to restate, it IS POSSIBLE to lose money in the
long run on an EVEN money bet...the LONGER the run the more likely it is
that someone will be FARTHER ahead.
>So, basically, you are asking people to pay you to show that the rolls
>are not random. The fact that noone wants to pay you for this does not
>mean that they think it will be expensive. It's simply not
>interesting, because there's nothing in it for anyone but you.
>Per Torstein Roeine email: pe...@ifi.uio.no
>University of Oslo
There SHOULD be plenty in it for "anyone but you". There are thousands and
thousands of people who use these programs at home or on the net and the
results of this test SHOULD prove very interesting to them. If finding out
that the dice ARE NOT RANDOM is NOT interesting to you and your cohorts in
this newsgroup, then you have an uncurious mind and that is a bad thing
indeed.
Per Torstein Rřine
> >If the rolls ARE truly random, then by BY DEFINITION of randomness,
> >there is no way that any prediction you can make (disregarding looking
> >into the future...) can have, in the long run, any correlation with
> >the rolls. It does not matter what the predictions are. Your
> >predictions can be systematic (for example double six every time), or
> >truly random, or anything between. In any case, you will neither win
> >or lose in the long run. It is IMPOSSIBLE in this case to lose money
> >in the long run.
>
> When you say "It is IMPOSSIBLE in this case to lose money in the long run"
> you are falling into one of the classic traps in probability....the idea
> that in the long run things will even out. This is disproved by the Law of
> Large Nimbers which states that as the number of trials INCREASES the %
> fluctuation from the expected will decrease but the ACTUAL fluctuations will
> INCREASE.
I like to be paid per hour of work, and if I was gambling, I would
like my winnings to be proportional to the number of times I placed a
bet. Let's say that I wish to win at least x$ for each $ I am betting.
In the case above, if I bet an infinite number of times, the
probability of my wish coming true is zero for any value of x. This is
what I mean when I say that it is impossible to win or lose money this
way in the long run.
--
Per Torstein Roeine email: pe...@ifi.uio.no
Daniel Murphy
<mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>Did you get that "Mr. Rocket-Scientist"...?
>
>case some of us may want to avoid the area for
>fear that you may be contagious...
This, that and another similar post indicates that you´ve run entirely
out of new ways to repeat the same ideas and have nothing left but
misplaced sarcasm and insults for some of the more productive and
interesting participants in this newsgroup. MK, your contributions
were already getting stale, and now they're not even civil enough to
bother with. In the future, count me out.
________________________________________________
Daniel Murphy www.cityraccoon.com/
Humlebæk Backgammon Klub www.hbgk.dk/
Raccoon on FIBS www.fibs.com/
Raccoon on GamesGrid too
Daniel Murphy
<gammonut@_R_E_M_O_V_E_worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I wrote:
>>I may choose to change the
>>seed and/or counter at any time
>
>It seems to me like you're a tad afraid of Murat's so-called "special
>powers." If you're so confident about JF's random dice, why do you even care
>about changing the seed/counter?
Shirley, you jest. My fear of Special mK powers is about equal to my
confidence that the current version of JellyFish can sit up, bark, and
piddle.
But to answer your question: I don´t care.
I suppose someone could claim -- claim -- an ability to predict
JellyFish´s rolls based on previous sequences of rolls beginning at a
particular seed and counter, in which case changing the seed/counter
at random or selected times would invalidate a test of such claim.
However, I gather that MK´s special predictive powers (late bulletin:
now he says he *doesn´t* have any; more bewildering updates to follow)
were alleged to apply to JellyFish getting good rolls or the best
possible roll with inordinate frequency, based on the position of the
checkers on the backgammon board, in which case, changing the
seed/counter at random or selected times should have no affect
whatsoever on a test of MK's powers of prediction.
Come to think of it, though:
If, as JellyFish´s programmer and those whose opinions I tend to
respect maintain, JellyFish´s rolls are determined by the seed and
counter setting, than it would quite curious indeed if those
predetermined rolls implausibly benefitted JellyFish more often than
they should. But if that were one´s theory, it would be easily
disproven. First, I thought, by playing against JellyFish, making
optimal rolls for each side, and advancing the counter before each
game until enough data points were collected. But no, there´s an
easier way: Simply play JellyFish one game in which -- to some
statistical neophyte -- JellyFish´s roll(s) are unbelievable, and then
play the game again with the same moves up until the point of
unbelievable rolling, but reverse sides.
But if JellyFish´s seed and counter were merely present to hoodwink us
into thinking that JellyFish plays an honest game, then one wonders
why the devious creature wouldn´t be smart enough to keep giving
itself wonder rolls no matter what the seed/counter setting or when or
how often it were changed.
I note that no one has ever reported the results of an exhaustive
examination of the sequence of rolls generated by JellyFish's seed and
counter to determine with a high degree of certitude that they were
random. There may be someone on this planet with the time and interest
to carry out this investigation. Other than that, though, the entire
subject of JellyFish rolls seems to have been exhausted a long time
ago, and in the absence of new EVIDENCE seems to be adequately covered
by the articles on this topic in the rec.games.backgammon archive. See
www.bkgm.com/archive.html for details.
David Montgomery
<Sorry to intrude, but I guess I'm one of the people who don't get it. I
<appreciate the pity, but could someone explain why the magic number is 50%?
<If you're making a prediction against a dice roll, you're betting on one
<possibility out of 36. Even giving away the reflections, you're betting
<slightly higher than 1 out of 18. Successfully predicting 1 out of 2 seems
<to be well above random.
Nothing to worry about -- your post shows that actually you *do* get
it, far more than Murat. *Murat* said the magic number was 50%.
I eagerly await the results of this test. However, I'm also willing
to take bets that Bill Hill or someone else cracks the JF dice generator
before Murat participates in such a test.
David Montgomery
mo...@cs.umd.edu
monty on FIBS and GG
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
>If finding out
>that the dice ARE NOT RANDOM is NOT interesting to you and your cohorts in
>this newsgroup, then you have an uncurious mind and that is a bad thing
>indeed.
You are mistaken. Finding out would be very interesting! So please do
let us know what you find out, everyone!
It's the mindless "MK" drivel about it and all the suggestions without
any argument or proof whatsoever ("Perceived biases" is the most MK came
up with so far) that are not interesting.
--
Robert-Jan/Zorba
PTaber
Gary Wong <ga...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:wtogimy...@brigantine.CS.Arizona.EDU...
> > Why...? The issue is whether JF's dice is rigged or
> > not. If I claim that I can predict JF's dice 70% of
> > the time but can only predict 57% of the time, would
> > that prove to you that JF's dice is random...? The
> > magic number here is 50% and if you can't see that,
> > it's a pity... :(
>
> The magic number's 50%, is it? Great. Fair odds on a 50% random event
are
> 1:1, so I'm willing to accept your wager at those odds. I hope the
following
> conditions are acceptable to you:
>
Sorry to intrude, but I guess I'm one of the people who don't get it. I
appreciate the pity, but could someone explain why the magic number is 50%?
If you're making a prediction against a dice roll, you're betting on one
possibility out of 36. Even giving away the reflections, you're betting
slightly higher than 1 out of 18. Successfully predicting 1 out of 2 seems
to be well above random.
>>>==>PStJTT
Gary Wong
> Gary Wong <ga...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:wtogimy...@brigantine.CS.Arizona.EDU...
> > > that prove to you that JF's dice is random...? The
> > > magic number here is 50% and if you can't see that,
> > > it's a pity... :(
> >
> > The magic number's 50%, is it? Great. Fair odds on a 50% random event
> are
> > 1:1, so I'm willing to accept your wager at those odds. I hope the
> following
> > conditions are acceptable to you:
>
> Sorry to intrude, but I guess I'm one of the people who don't get it. I
> appreciate the pity, but could someone explain why the magic number is 50%?
I am one of the people that don't get it, either. It was Murat and not me
that wrote the above sentence ("The magic number here is 50%...").
I do not follow the reasoning he took to arrive at that figure, but I am
willing to accept a wager at his odds.
> If you're making a prediction against a dice roll, you're betting on one
> possibility out of 36. Even giving away the reflections, you're betting
> slightly higher than 1 out of 18. Successfully predicting 1 out of 2 seems
> to be well above random.
I agree. Incidentally, if anybody wants a better offer than 1:1 odds, I
have pseudo-random number generators that I am willing to test, paying odds
of 15:1 for successful predictions under the same conditions as the previous
article for units of $1 to $10 (eg. at $10, you pay me $10 for every roll
unsuccessfully predicted and I pay you $150 for every prediction you get
right).
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat Kalinyaprak schrieb 7jal2d$a...@taisp3.in-tch.com...
>> Daniel Murphy wrote...
>>>"Murat Kalinyaprak" wrote:
>>>>I had in the past offered that I would bet money on
>>>>guessing JF's future dice rolls, proportionately to
>>>>the odds of the called rolls actually happening or
>>>>not happening. ... I'm just claiming that I have
>>>>psychic powers and think I may be able to make a few
>>>>bucks using them... :)
>Hmmm. I'm starting to think that Murat is loving every
>minute of all this attention and outrage.
Yes, obviously I enjoy it. Otherwise I wouldn't waste
my time here. But I didn't necessarily instigate it
just to get attention or cause outrage. In my school
years, I had some amateur interest in psychology and
had written a term paper about the survival value of
self-deception in humans (which may be non-existent
in other species). Since I joined this newsgroup, I
was always amazed at seeing so many self-deceiving
people gathered in one place. Remembering the jokes
made about psychological experiments in FIBS pages,
in this newsgroup, etc. I would say that if somebody
isn't actually using them for such experiments, they
are wasting invaluable opportunities/resources...
>It is clear to me that he knows EXACTLY that the odds and
>bets he is offering is laughable and that it gets up
>"peoples goat".
You're right that I know the odds I'm offering but
I don't see anything laughable about them at all.
>He is a master of double speak and has an uncanny way of
>ALMOST making some of his opinions seem reasonable.
I remember that some other person(s) made similar
remarks anout me in the past. I interpret this as
your knowing that my arguments are reasonable and
that your considering them double-speak is perhaps
the only way you can cope with them...
>Alas close inspection of the facts and even closer inspection
>of his double speak confirms the flaws in his thinking. A
>prime example being this "Heads I win, Tails we draw" concept ;)
I think you are describing your own helpless state
as I never had such a concept. The concept that I
had and had offered was: "If JF's dice is random,
we draw"... It's a very simple concept that seems
to elude/challenge the majority of people here for
some reason.
>Nooo, I think to use an English expression, "Murat is pulling
>our plonker (or leg :)."
I don't know what "plonker" means but I'm not pulling
anybody's leg. It may be your imagination in trying to
deny yourself the reality...
>As for Hadler.. At least Murat has his own theory. Rather
>than jumping on someone elses coat tails and saying "Yeah!
>HE'S RIGHT.. DANIELS wrong.. Don't like Daniel" garbage.
Although many people may share the same opinions,
they don't necessarily get to express them as a
chorus. So, there is nothing wrong with not being
the first one to voice an opinion and support it
in a follow up to somebody else's voicing it first.
He should be commended for having not only brains
but also guts to stand on the right side of an issue
among a pack of self-deceivers who seem to have not
enough of neither brains not guts...
>I suspect you're going to have egg on your face when Murat
>turns round and says the equivalent of "April fools".
Sorry but this won't happen... (Not until next year
anyway, since April is already past for this year...
Now this a double-speak... :)
>Although I swear half the time he does it for the sake on
>controversy itself rather than deep set views or opinions :)
Alan, please make an effort for once to be honest
with yourself and try to give a cincere thought to
the points I'm trying to make here, could you...?
You may surprize yourself to discover something...
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>>The reason nobody is willing to
>>take this no-risk bet because they don't really
>>believe (have proof) that JF's dice is random
>>and they see (or feel inside:) a risk of losing.
>No, dammit!
"You too, Rodrigo...?" :)
>The reason nobody is willing to take you up is because
>if their claim is invalid
Whay even insert that "*IF*" in your argument...?
How can their claim be possibly invalid...? Aren't
they the same "smarter" elite who had been giving
step-by-step instructions to the "dumber" ones, in
order to prove JF doesn't cheat with its dice (i.e.
JF's dice is random)...?
Looking at it from where they stand on the issue,
there should be nothing to worry about since they
must be right and therefore they can't possibly
lose in such a bet (other than some of their very
"precious" time which they say they would mind
wasting betting on non-winning odds but they don't
mind wasting lots of it on giving step-by-step
instruction to others at every oppotunity)...
>Of course you're not stupid enough to make a bet where
>you could lose money.
This isn't nor has it ever been a matter of winning
or losing money for me. The purpose of the bet I
offered has never been to make others lose money
either. I hope you guys will see the point behind
all this someday...
>At least 3 different people have tried to explain you that,
>but your "special powers" are keeping you from getting it
>straight.
I have no "special powers" and those people don't
seem to have even "ordinary brains" either... :(
Now, don't you be joining them...
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>However, I gather that MK´s special predictive powers (late
>bulletin: now he says he *doesn´t* have any; more bewildering
>updates to follow)
Never claimed I had such powers other than in a few
instances of sarcasm. If that was my claim, certain
things in life would have been much easier for you...
>If, as JellyFish´s programmer and those whose opinions I tend
>to respect maintain, JellyFish´s rolls are determined by the
>seed and counter setting, than it would quite curious indeed
>if those predetermined rolls implausibly benefitted JellyFish
>more often than they should.
Just to remind and keep things clear, I never claimed
that JF's rigged dice was benefiting itself more than
its opponents...
>But if that were one´s theory, it would be easily disproven.
>First, I thought, by playing against JellyFish, making....
No need to explain how since I had no such theory.
>though, the entire subject of JellyFish rolls seems to have
>been exhausted a long time ago, and in the absence of new
>EVIDENCE seems to be adequately covered by the articles on
>this topic in the rec.games.backgammon archive.
During the past many months, a lot of arguments have
been made that could be considered evidence in cases
where obtaining more/better evidence may be impractical,
impossible, improper, illegal, etc... But if you had
your head buried in the sand, obviously you wouldn't
have noticed them and you will keep asking and asking
for new evidence. Also, some of those arguments were
"leading". That is, you could have pursued them further
to perhaps discover some new evidence on your own. But
you, like many others, have already closed your brains
shut to any other possibility than what you "believe"
(i.e. "believe without proof"!)... If you want to keep
memorizing some outdated/mildewed/rotten articles in
some archive instead of striving to learn/discover/know
more, that's your choice...
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>In <84j83.545$h73...@news.flash.net> PTaber writes:
>>Sorry to intrude, but I guess I'm one of the people who
>>don't get it. I appreciate the pity, but could someone
>>explain why the magic number is 50%?
>>If you're making a prediction against a dice roll, you're
>>betting on one possibility out of 36. Even giving away
>>the reflections, you're betting slightly higher than 1
>>out of 18. Successfully predicting 1 out of 2 seems
>>to be well above random.
>Nothing to worry about -- your post shows that actually
>you *do* get it, far more than Murat. *Murat* said the
>magic number was 50%.
I see that David had already gave you "the" :) answer,
but let me give you mine also, just in case you may
like to have a choice...
That 50% above refers to the money won/lost by the ones
who would be betting proportionate amounts to the actual
odds. If I bet that the next dice will be 66, 36 times
in a row and if the dice is random then I'll be right
once and wrong 35 times. With the amounts bet matching
the actual odds (i.e. $1 against $35), I/we would break
even. The same concept may be easier to understand this
same way of betting in simpler ways with simpler odds
like tossing coins... I hope this helps you understand
what I meant by that 50%.
>I eagerly await the results of this test. However, I'm also
>willing to take bets that Bill Hill or someone else cracks
>the JF dice generator before Murat participates in such a test.
I couldn't wait to see that day... :)
MK
Mike Maguire
game and D/L JF v3.01 some months ago. At first I was impressed by JF,
then I started a long slow steam re: JF. I believe JF doesnot roll
random numbers ( I don't believe any computer program can roll truly
random numbers)
but JF isn't even close to random. As you stated, an observate player
can more or less predict what JF is going to roll, esp in tight
positions and bear off postions.
I don't fully understand the JF SEED option and I haven't taken the time
to right JF's author about my observations. At this point, I find JF to
be almost useless
I'm feeling particulary masochistic....
Mike
Murat Kalinyaprak wrote:
> Daniel Murphy wrote...
>
> >"Murat Kalinyaprak" wrote:
>
> >>I had in the past offered that I would bet money on
> >>guessing JF's future dice rolls, proportionately to
> >>the odds of the called rolls actually happening or
> >>not happening. ... I'm just claiming that I have
> >>psychic powers and think I may be able to make a few
> >>bucks using them... :)
>
> >What odds are you offering?
>
> Fair/normal odds. Is it clear that I may try to
> predict numbers to come in any variation...? For
> example, I may say "JF will now roll..." a double,
> double greater than 33, any 2 doubles within the
> next 6 rolls, a 4, a 5 or a 2 or a 9, a 61, not
> a 3 nor 2, etc. and I may do it for either player
> or even both players as many successive events
> like "A will leave a blot and B will hit". In the
> last case for example, if the odds of it happening
> is 1 in 47, you would be betting $47 against my $1
> and you won't have the option of not accepting the
> bet. Once we start, you will have to go along with
> whatever I bet, which may be none or as many as I
> want during a game. However you may require that I
> bet a predetermined number of times like 100 or 200
> (which I may use up in 25 games or 400 games, those
> being of any length cubeless/cubeful games). Also,
> I'll be free to play my moves as I wish. If I make
> an unusual move and bet that I'll get hit and if it
> happens, you can't complain that I made it happen
> intentionally. I think the idea behind this should
> be clear enough but if we get really serious about
> it, there may be a need to enumerate as many of the
> conditions as possible with whatever else that may
> be overlooked to be decided according to the general
> intent of the bet..
>
> MK
Mike Maguire
I'm primarily talking about the high percetange of "perfect" rolls,
and an extermely high # of doubles, esp. when bearing off. For example, I've
played the same position several times , usually JF is behind and the only thing
that'll
win the game is getting doubles to get out of a tight position. Today, it
rolled a double every time (three times) the move was replayed
Mike
PTaber wrote:
> Mike Maguire <mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3762F76E...@worldnet.att.net...
> > During the seventies I played a lot of BG. Recently I rediscovered the
> > game and D/L JF v3.01 some months ago. At first I was impressed by JF,
> > then I started a long slow steam re: JF. I believe JF doesnot roll
> > random numbers ( I don't believe any computer program can roll truly
> > random numbers)
> > but JF isn't even close to random. As you stated, an observate player
> > can more or less predict what JF is going to roll, esp in tight
> > positions and bear off postions.
>
> I'm in about your same position and also was upset when JF would almost
> always hit my blot(s) immediately after doubling me. I got so upset I
> started printing the board when a double was offered then noting JF's
> "convenient" roll.
>
> Sadly, what I found was I was playing old strategy against a modern player.
> JF was doubling me when there was a greater than 80% chance of hitting me --
> that's why it always got a "lucky roll."
>
> JF doesn't forget to figure out the probabilities. JF doesn't miss a good
> move. It plays a tight game. That's why it seems lucky. by the way, after
> paying more attention to my game, I beat JF six straight. It still mostly
> kicks my butt, though. (It never gets tired or lazy, either.)
>
> >>>==>PStJTT
PTaber
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
<mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>VSG wrote news:7jqi75$44o$1...@news05.btx.dtag.de...
>>He is a master of double speak and has an uncanny way of
>>ALMOST making some of his opinions seem reasonable.
>
>I remember that some other person(s) made similar
>remarks anout me in the past. I interpret this as
>your knowing that my arguments are reasonable and
>that your considering them double-speak is perhaps
>the only way you can cope with them...
...which proves VSG right!
Now Murat, don't you think there are other, more fulfilling ways of
getting attention?
--
Robert-Jan/Zorba
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
wrote:
>I hear you, however I not talking about JF hitting an opponent after doubling,
>I'm primarily talking about the high percetange of "perfect" rolls,
>and an extermely high # of doubles, esp. when bearing off. For example, I've
>played the same position several times , usually JF is behind and the only thing
>that'll
>win the game is getting doubles to get out of a tight position. Today, it
>rolled a double every time (three times) the move was replayed
Try the manual dice option and see if the bot is less lucky and/or beats
you less often.
--
Robert-Jan/Zorba
Me Again
>I hear you, however I not talking about JF hitting an opponent after doubling,
>I'm primarily talking about the high percetange of "perfect" rolls,
>and an extermely high # of doubles, esp. when bearing off. For example, I've
>played the same position several times , usually JF is behind and the only thing
>that'll
>win the game is getting doubles to get out of a tight position. Today, it
>rolled a double every time (three times) the move was replayed
Out of how many replays?
1) There has never been *any* solid data shown that demonstrates that JF (or any
other bot) cheats by rolling non-random dice or by looking ahead at the dice
rolls. People who continue to advocate this position after logical proof
disproving it has been presented, demonstrate that they lack the requisite
intelligence needed to understand the solid arguments (that have been
*repeatedly* presented in this newsgroup) about why their "suspicion" is
unfounded:
and
2) There have been a lot of people who whine that JF cheats (without trying to
offer proof), as a way of trying to explain their own backgammon playing
shortcomings. These people are generally seen to be poor sports who blame
"luck" for their shortcomings.
3) And there are even more people who silently recognize that JF plays an honest
game, a better game than they play, and who just silently work on their game
with this excellent and fair opponent as their competitor or tutor or analyzer.
These people will lurk, or discuss moves and positions, instead of complaining
(or offering "proof") about non-random dice.
Choose which type of BG player you want to be seen as, then act accordingly.
Good Luck.
jc
Mike Maguire
other peoples statements. I accept them for what they are = statements and opinions. I believe I stated my position clearly. When I find the
time an inclination I'll write JFs author about my concerns. I believe that JF does not roll random numbers as stated in my orginal post.
I believe my examples of nonrandom dice rolls were fairly clear.
I also believe JF has an option that will influence the randomness of dice rolls. I am not familar w/ the JF SEED option and how to adjust the SEED
option.
. R.J. Veldhuizen stated I should try the JF manual dice option, which I will do.
BTW, I'm not a whiner, just stating my observations (see above). Personally, I find Usenet messages that are helpful and informative are messages
that are not hysterical rantings. In my Fidonet days such messages were called flames. Fidonet mail readers had the option to filter them w/ the
"twit" filter.
I enjoy Usenet groups, but I mourn the loss of a Fidonet twit filter, I think
>Out of how many replays?
After it happening so many times I finally watched it and counted 3 doubles after using the "undo" option 3 three times. Each time it rolled a double.
Another example using "undo" is JF rolling 6-1 x2 to escape my homeboard.
>There have been a lot of people who whine that JF cheats (without trying to
offer proof), as a way of trying to explain their own backgammon playing
shortcomings. These people are generally seen to be poor sports who blame
"luck" for their shortcomings.
"Poor sports...." "blaming luck......"
How/why did you infer those statements? I didn't say how frequenently I lose to JF.......
I play 9 point matches at level 7 and I do quite well if you need to know.......
>Choose which type of BG player you want to be seen as, then act accordingly.
?????
When did a computer program appear that will generate truly random rolls? The inability of computer programs to generate random numbers used
to be a routine topic in computer science classes. In the early 80s I needed to generate random numbers to select a schedule for testing procedures.
I finally gave up because the computer would only generate high, low and mean numbers. Kind of groups of numbers. Finally bought two sets of
pool keely balls and used them for years. As far as I know they are still being used.
Hope you have a good week,
Mike
Me Again wrote:
> Good Luck.
>
> jc
Mike Maguire
MGM>Another example using "undo" is JF rolling 6-1 x2 to escape my homeboard. ^^^^
^^^^
"undo" should read "takeback." Sorry for the error.
Mike
Daniel Murphy
<mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>BTW, I'm not a whiner, just stating my observations (see above). Personally,
>I find Usenet messages that are helpful and informative are messages
>that are not hysterical rantings. In my Fidonet days such messages were called flames.
Mike, there´s nothing wrong with unhysterical observations per se. But
compare:
"These are my observations and I sure would like a response even
though I haven´t bothered to inform myself of anything that has been
said before about this topic in this newsgroup."
"I had some observations to make, but after reviewing some of the
previous discussion on this topic, I see that many others had the same
obsersations, and after reviewing some of the responses to those
observations, I have a couple more points I'd like to discuss here."
Which one is you?
________________________________________________
Daniel Murphy www.cityraccoon.com/
Humlebćk Backgammon Klub www.hbgk.dk/
VSG
> Alan, please make an effort for once to be honest
> with yourself and try to give a cincere thought to
> the points I'm trying to make here, could you...?
> You may surprize yourself to discover something...
>
> MK
>
LOL
Murat, for once in YOUR life stop being such an arrogant pratt. The only thing I
have "discovered" from you is your ability to baffle yourself with your own BS.
I have also "discovered" that you will not allow people to disagree with you
without some snidy remark or sarcasm in a return post. How sad that you need to
be so anti-social in your reply posts. the mark of a man who realises his
arguments are flawed and has to reply with name calling and sarcasm. If you are
not pulling peoples leg with this psychic power/roll prediction crap then any
respect I ever had for you is out the window.
Cue name calling sarcastic reply.
Alan Webb
http://marina.fortunecity.com/frog/303/BGHome.htm
Paul Tanenbaum
Mike Maguire <mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> ... I not talking about JF hitting an opponent after doubling,
> I'm primarily talking about the high percentange of "perfect" rolls...
> Mike
I know what you mean, Mike.
Two years ago I was introduced to Jellyfish at a bg tournament.
The owner had it loaded onto his portable computer, and offered me a
demo. First the board appeared, then he hit a button, and suddenly Jf
had made its 5-point...
"What happened?"
"Jellyfish rolled the dice, and won the opening roll with a 31."
Oh. Of course.
Now, I'm not claiming that the software cheats. But it does appear
that Mr. Dahl lacks business smarts. When the software is being demo'd
to a new user, and potential sales prospect, it's obviously good sense,
not to mention courtesy, to give the opponent the opening roll!
---
Paul T.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Paul Tanenbaum
mag...@rahul.net (Oh no, not You Again!) wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:10:06 -0400, Mike Maguire
<mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >... I'm primarily talking about the high percentange of "perfect"
rolls...
>
> 1) There has never been *any* solid data shown that demonstrates that
> 2) There have been a lot of people who whine that JF cheats (without
> trying to offer proof), as a way of trying to explain their own
> backgammon playing shortcomings. These people are generally seen
> jc
I once knew a very strong player who was a bg hustler. (I won't
name this individual, but I'm sure he is known to some readers here.)
He would set up his board on a park bench, and take on all comers at any
stakes they wished. He invariably won, and his victims would invariably
gripe about how lucky he was (they rarely accused him of cheating).
Whenever this occurred, he would respond "Thank you". He believed the
adage that the good players are indeed luckier, and took their remarks
as a compliment to his skills.
With this in mind, I think that the outlook for Jf's vendor will
darken considerably, should the day ever arrive when people no longer
consider their product to be cheating.
Mike Maguire
played a match on the Yahoo BG site. I commented to my opponent that Yahoo
appeared to be rolling an awful lot of doubles. At this point
my opponent had rolled three consecutive doubles. After my opponent rolled
some more dooubles his comment was "hmmm..." The next game I wrote down
his doubles: D6,,D2,D4 & D1. After
the double 1s I started paying attention to the game and stopped counting
doubles. (I won the match) A buddy of mine wrote a computer BG program for
school in the early 80s. I'm going to look him and pick his brain re:
"random" number generator algorithms. A guy I used to play w/ in the 70s
became a computer scientist for a NSA think tank. Think I'll look him up
too. As you can see from the messages in this thread BG programs can be an
emotional subject for some folks.
Mike
Paul Tanenbaum wrote:
> In article <3763210E...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Mike Maguire <mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > ... I not talking about JF hitting an opponent after doubling,
> > I'm primarily talking about the high percentange of "perfect" rolls...
> > Mike
>
> I know what you mean, Mike.
> Two years ago I was introduced to Jellyfish at a bg tournament.
> The owner had it loaded onto his portable computer, and offered me a
> demo. First the board appeared, then he hit a button, and suddenly Jf
> had made its 5-point...
> "What happened?"
> "Jellyfish rolled the dice, and won the opening roll with a 31."
> Oh. Of course.
> Now, I'm not claiming that the software cheats. But it does appear
> that Mr. Dahl lacks business smarts. When the software is being demo'd
> to a new user, and potential sales prospect, it's obviously good sense,
> not to mention courtesy, to give the opponent the opening roll!
>
Mike Maguire
usenet group operated under the same
conventions and etiquette as other usenet groups.. Sorry, but I don't understand the context
of the following statement:
DM>Mike, there´s nothing wrong with unhysterical observations per se.....
Mike
Daniel Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:22:21 -0400, Mike Maguire
> <mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >BTW, I'm not a whiner, just stating my observations (see above). Personally,
> >I find Usenet messages that are helpful and informative are messages
> >that are not hysterical rantings. In my Fidonet days such messages were called flames.
>
> Mike, there´s nothing wrong with unhysterical observations per se. But
> compare:
>
> "These are my observations and I sure would like a response even
> though I haven´t bothered to inform myself of anything that has been
> said before about this topic in this newsgroup."
>
> "I had some observations to make, but after reviewing some of the
> previous discussion on this topic, I see that many others had the same
> obsersations, and after reviewing some of the responses to those
> observations, I have a couple more points I'd like to discuss here."
>
> Which one is you?
>
> ________________________________________________
> Daniel Murphy www.cityraccoon.com/
> Humlebæk Backgammon Klub www.hbgk.dk/
Mike Maguire
games out.
First GAme - JF rolled 4 non consecutive doubles - 4s, 3s, 1s, and 5s. Second game JF rolls
double
4s, 5s, 1s and 1s. I roll double 6s and 1s. That's eight doubles in two games. I'm going
to keep track
of doubles for now on. Most of the doubles come more or less close together, they were not
dispresed
throughout the game.
Mike
Daniel Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:22:21 -0400, Mike Maguire
> <mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >BTW, I'm not a whiner, just stating my observations (see above). Personally,
> >I find Usenet messages that are helpful and informative are messages
> >that are not hysterical rantings. In my Fidonet days such messages were called flames.
>
> Mike, there´s nothing wrong with unhysterical observations per se. But
> compare:
>
> "These are my observations and I sure would like a response even
> though I haven´t bothered to inform myself of anything that has been
> said before about this topic in this newsgroup."
>
> "I had some observations to make, but after reviewing some of the
> previous discussion on this topic, I see that many others had the same
> obsersations, and after reviewing some of the responses to those
> observations, I have a couple more points I'd like to discuss here."
>
> Which one is you?
>
> ________________________________________________
> Daniel Murphy www.cityraccoon.com/
> Humlebćk Backgammon Klub www.hbgk.dk/
David desJardins
> Just played two games w/ JF at level 7. I took all dooubles because I
> wante dto play the games out. First GAme - JF rolled 4 non
> consecutive doubles - 4s, 3s, 1s, and 5s. Second game JF rolls double
> 4s, 5s, 1s and 1s. I roll double 6s and 1s. That's eight doubles in
> two games.
Yeah. That's called "average".
If people are getting annoyed at seeing eight doubles in two games, it's
no wonder there's so much whining.
David desJardins
Mike Maguire
didn't know that was average.
Since you've obviously studied the averages, why do JFs doubles tend to
happen in groups, some loose and
some not so loose? I admit, I too have gotten lots of doubles and for now
on I'm going to document them.
Of course, for the long view averages don't occur over one or two games
only. I intially reacted to JFs roll behavior after the couple hundred
games I played w/ it. Tonight, one the two games I played w/ JF it needed a
double 4 and it got. All of us have gotten a miracle roll occasionally, but
JF must either be blessed by the BG Gods, or it's dice roll generator
doesn't roll random rolls.......
Since the feelings are running so high in this newsgroup I'm going to put
off some other projects and dig up some empirical data on JF roll behavior.
However, it maybe somewhat difficult to document behavior by the
BG Gods, but fairly easy to, and time consuming, to dig up empirical
mathematical data.......
Mike
Mike Maguire
JF - doubles: 3s, 2s, 1s, 6s, and 6s. The first double 6 was another
perfect roll. I guess the Rolling Stones are right on target when they sing
"You always get what you need" At least an awful lot of times for JF.
Doubles for me - 2s, 1s, and 5s. I dunno if these are legitimate averages
when compared to dice rolled
by people. We're talking about all three games here. What do you think?
Daniel Murphy
<mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Hi Daniel, Looks like I owe some members of the group an apology. I assumed the backgammon
>usenet group operated under the same
>conventions and etiquette as other usenet groups
It does. And one Usenet convention is that newsgroups are not the
depository for an endlessly circling stream of repetitive articles,
questions and responses.
Surely you´ve noticed that many new readers seem to think that a
newsgroup is the place to ask any question, no more how many thousand
times it has been asked before. It's not.
r.g.bg is not the place to ask "Where can I play backgammon online?"
IF you can´t find out yourself, then it IS the place to ask "Where can
I find information on online backgammon sites?"
It´s not the place to ask "How many checkers can I put on a point?"
Sorry, that´s been asked maybe nine dozen times before. IF you can´t
find out yourself, then it IS the place to ask "Where can I find a
copy of the rules of backgammon?"
It´s not the place to say "I played JellyFish and it rolled the 62 it
needed three times in a row." It IS the place to make informed
questions or comments AFTER reading the 17 articles on "Software --
does it cheat?" that are archived at:
http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?menu+software,softwaredoesitcheat
And that's why rec.games.backgammon has a FAQ, the WWW Backgammon
Page, Backgammon Galore, and dozens of other informative websites
where anyone can find an answer to frequently asked questions --
without asking it yet again for the 10,000th time here!
Frequently Made Observations are similar to Frequently Asked
Questions. They´re only missing the question mark.
>Sorry, but I don't understand the context of the following statement:
>> Mike, there´s nothing wrong with unhysterical observations per se. But
>> compare:
>
>> "These are my observations and I sure would like a response even
>> though I haven´t bothered to inform myself of anything that has been
>> said before about this topic in this newsgroup."
>
>> "I had some observations to make, but after reviewing some of the
>> previous discussion on this topic, I see that many others had the same
> obsersations, and after reviewing some of the responses to those
> observations, I have a couple more points I'd like to discuss here."
My point, Mike, was that your observations about JellyFish were clear,
rational, factually stated, and absolutely uninteresting, because:
(1) EXACTLY THE SAME observations have been made and answered in
rec.games.backgammon countless times before;
(2) Many articles on this and related topics are archived at
www.bkgm.com/archive.html;
(3) If you read and digest those archived articles, then you´ve got a
much better chance of coming up with something new and interesting to
say on the topic.
Usenet convention and etiquette asks that readers become informed
newsgroup participants BEFORE posting here. Read the
rec.games.backgammon FAQ on the WWW Backgammon Page, and relevant
articles in the rec.games.backgammon archive at Backgammon Galore.
Pointers to these and many more backgammon-related sites can be found
at Mel Leifer's Gammon Links at:
http://www.chicagopoint.com/links.html
________________________________________________
Daniel Murphy www.cityraccoon.com/
Humlebæk Backgammon Klub www.hbgk.dk/
Daniel Murphy
<mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Since the feelings are running so high in this newsgroup I'm going to put
>off some other projects and dig up some empirical data on JF roll behavior.
Excellent idea! We like scrupulously obtained empirical data so much
better than anecdotal observations and whining.
>However, it maybe somewhat difficult to document behavior by the
>BG Gods, but fairly easy to, and time consuming, to dig up empirical
>mathematical data.......
Which is why most of the whiners and observers never get around to
collecting any data. But some people have collected data, and others
have pointed out what collecting empirical data requires, and the
Backgammon Gods have decreed: "Let their articles be archived at
www.bkgm.com/archive.html!" It´s a good place to start before
embarking on a long tedious mathematical data dig.
Murat Kalinyaprak
> Murat Kalinyaprak wrote:
>> Alan, please make an effort for once to be honest
>> with yourself and try to give a cincere thought to
>> the points I'm trying to make here, could you...?
>> You may surprize yourself to discover something...
>LOL
>Murat, for once in YOUR life stop being such an arrogant
>pratt. The only thing I have "discovered" from you is
>your ability to baffle yourself with your own BS.
Here is a brief sequence for you and your likes who
are incapable of discovering even what's shoved at
your face:
Let's start at the time when I had discovered a dice bug
in JF last year, only after a short time of experimenting
with it.
- F. Dahl explained it was due to how numbers are stored
in a computer, said JF should have done a magnitude check
and called it an oversight since JF was doing that needed
magnitude check with random seeds it picked based on the
system clock each time it's started.
- JF wasn't checking those seeds for <65536 but for <35768
and by golly it was again only Murat who had noticed it to
make everybody else (including F. Dahl?) discover it.
- After being scolded for making F. Dahl repeat himself
(i.e. repeat his non-answer a few lines long), Murat was
impressed with the quickness of F. Dahl's "answer" and
had added that he would have been even more impressed if
a fixed version could be made available as quickly also.
Of course that was sarcasm insinuating that the fix would
prove the bug to be not a trivial one...
- While waiting for the fix, many JF groupies maintained
that the bug was perhaps caused by something as trivial
as a variable being cast as short-int instead of long-int,
etc. Let's underline this (and I'll refer to them as JF
groupies later on).
- After a number of months, a supposedly cosmetic upgrade
of JF was released, incorporating a drastic fix for the
dice bug limiting the valid seed range now to 1-65535...!
The new JF also started applying this magnitude check to
the seeds it generetad (vs, the <32768).
- Amazingly none of the JF groupies questioned why such a
trivial bug wasn't fixed by recasting the short-int as a
long-int, etc. but instead by severely reducing the size
of valid seeds range from 1-999999999 to 1-65535. If I had
said that the bug was due to how numbers are internally
represented and turned around to resort to such a drastic
fix, I would have been probably accused of lying outright
if not of anything worse... But, of course, my name isn't
F. Dahl...
- Murat has been challenging any and all readers of this
newsgroup (including the math phd's, computer scientists,
rockets scientists and the rest) to post here an algorithm
that could mimic JF's dice bug but nobody has yet been
able to do so. Therefore Murat concluded that JF's dice
rolls must not be coming from an algorithm (at least not
from a straight-forward one). Does anyone have a problem
with this conclusion...?
- In case the next JF version wouldn't roll the same dice
for the same seed/counter values as the current JF at that
time, Murat jokingly indicated that then the question for
the next 100 years would remain whether JF 3.0 (regardless
of future changes) was rigged or not...
- When JF 3.5 was released Murat first spot checked whether
JF rolled the same dice sequences then he byte-compared all
the data files that came with it (they were identical).
- Later on Murat noticed that the versions weren't always
making the same moves in identical positions. Aha! Since
there was no new neural-training done and no good reasons
for the different plays, could there be a link between the
dice bug having been fixed and the new JF starting to move
differently...? Go ahead, say "Naaah" and bury back your
head in the sand if you wish...
- Some JF admirers tried as usual to trivialise this also
because they thought in my samples the alternative moves
didn't effect the outcome. (We've got to give to JF that
although it's not smart enough to know when to resign, it
does at least know that when the cube is at 32 in a 25
point match, it doesn't matter if it loses straight of if
it gets gammoned:)... Anyway, I have recently seen that
other people had offered more sample cases where the
differences between the moves aren't as unimportant as
losing a 25 point match by 32-0 vs. by 64-0...
Ok, I think this should be enough for now. Do you think
you can put the above pieces together and "discover"
something yet...? If not, just wait. There is no rush
at all. The important thing for everybody to know is
that this subject won't go away until the whole world
"discovers" the truth (let me say whatever it may be
in order to be proper/fair/safe/etc.)
>I have also "discovered" that you will not allow people
>to disagree with you without some snidy remark or sarcasm
>in a return post.
Hanging around in rgb must get to one eventually. Why
don't we leave this at "what comes around goes around"...
>How sad that you need to be so anti-social in your reply
>posts.
I'll take being anti-social to being a social-wimp
any day... If "social" means "anti-reality", I just
can't bring myself around to do it... :(
>the mark of a man who realises his arguments are flawed
>and has to reply with name calling and sarcasm.
Here is my routine question to your likes: "Where were
you when Daniels was calling me names or Bower was
using sarcasm to belittle me, etc...?" Do you always
wake up in the afternoon and miss the smell of coffee...?
>If you are not pulling peoples leg with this psychic
>power/roll prediction crap then any respect I ever had
>for you is out the window.
I couldn't quite parse this sentence but the psychic
power thing was the sarcasm part. As for JF's dice being
rigged or not, even any inhabitant of the planet "Moro"
may know better...
MK
David desJardins
> Is it average for my opponent to roll 8 doubles against my 2 doubles?
> I didn't know that was average. Since you've obviously studied the
> averages, why do JFs doubles tend to happen in groups, some loose and
> some not so loose?
Because that's what random events do.
David desJardins
hadler
is commendable. PLEASE keep up the good fight as we need you in this
newsgroup so the daniel murphys in the group can be exposed for the small
minded people they are.
Murat Kalinyaprak wrote in message <7k53q6$3q...@taisp3.in-tch.com>...
Gary Wong
> - Murat has been challenging any and all readers of this
> newsgroup (including the math phd's, computer scientists,
> rockets scientists and the rest) to post here an algorithm
> that could mimic JF's dice bug but nobody has yet been
> able to do so. Therefore Murat concluded that JF's dice
> rolls must not be coming from an algorithm (at least not
> from a straight-forward one). Does anyone have a problem
> with this conclusion...?
Yes, I have a problem with any non sequitur. You are essentially
claiming "A can cause B; I see B; therefore A must be happening".
None of the other questions in your article are new. Many people in
this newsgroup posted answers to them the first time; rather than have
us reiterate those answers, perhaps you might like to use Deja News to
recall what we said at the time?
While we're repeating old questions, I notice you still haven't
answered the very first question I asked you almost a year ago. It's
still around, in case you now have an answer:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=371905742
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary Wong, Department of Computer Science, University of Arizona
ga...@cs.arizona.edu http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~gary/
David desJardins
> - Murat has been challenging any and all readers of this
> newsgroup (including the math phd's, computer scientists,
> rockets scientists and the rest) to post here an algorithm
> that could mimic JF's dice bug but nobody has yet been
> able to do so.
Nope. No one has chosen to do so. Plenty of people are able to do so.
How much will you pay me to post such an algorithm? If you pay me an
adequate consulting fee, I'll be happy to fulfill your request.
David desJardins
spcor
<ptane...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
> When the software is being demo'd
> to a new user, and potential sales prospect, it's obviously good sense,
> not to mention courtesy, to give the opponent the opening roll!
If Jellyfish did that, then the opening roll would not be truly random.
To that extent the game would be rigged, it would be cheating, and it
would misrepresent the product.
If, as a sales gimmick, any product were rigged to operate differently
from its normal mode of operation, I would feel that the salesperson
was being discourteous to me.
And in terms of what makes good sense, maybe it is good sense in
business to mislead a potential customer to make a sale. I only know
that that that kind of good sense wouldn't work with me.
Enjoy!
Dan
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
Gary Wong
> On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:56:41 GMT Paul Tanenbaum
> <ptane...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > When the software is being demo'd
> > to a new user, and potential sales prospect, it's obviously good sense,
> > not to mention courtesy, to give the opponent the opening roll!
>
> If Jellyfish did that, then the opening roll would not be truly random.
> To that extent the game would be rigged, it would be cheating, and it
> would misrepresent the product.
Absolutely.
If anybody is interested in the history of computer programs
deliberately losing at games of chance for the sake of PR, the
ultimate parable must surely be the (now) 40 year old blackjack
program in Ed Nather's _The Story of Mel, a Real Programmer_.
The story is online at:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel-annotated/mel-annotated.html
Mike Maguire
Daniel Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:19:53 -0400, Mike Maguire
> <mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Hi Daniel, Looks like I owe some members of the group an apology. I assumed the backgammon
> >usenet group operated under the same
> >conventions and etiquette as other usenet groups
>
> It does. And one Usenet convention is that newsgroups are not the
> depository for an endlessly circling stream of repetitive articles,
> questions and responses.
>
This is true, but it's a good starting point! OTOH, I prefer to keep this thread in context.
I responded to a message in an ongoing thread about JF dice rolls.
>Surely you´ve noticed that many new readers seem to think that a
> newsgroup is the place to ask any question, no more how many thousand
> times it has been asked before. It's not..
>
>
> r.g.bg is not the place to ask "Where can I play backgammon online?"
> IF you can´t find out yourself, then it IS the place to ask "Where can
> I find information on online backgammon sites?"
For me, a post to a newsgroup is no different from a spoken statement. We have to choice to
ignore it, respond to positively, only acknowledge it, flame it, etc. I try not not to be rude
to the people I
talk with. When she was sober, my mom taught me to be courteous to people,
especially vistors
Surely, someone asking such a question would not get flamed?
I know there are a lot of world weary backgammon players out there,
and assorted bg predators. In the real world as opposed to cyberspace
the piranha and such are tempered by all of the other creatures in their environment.
Except of course for the really bad actors.
>
>
> It´s not the place to ask "How many checkers can I put on a point?"
> Sorry, that´s been asked maybe nine dozen times before. IF you can´t
> find out yourself, then it IS the place to ask "Where can I find a
> copy of the rules of backgammon?"
I would answer the question, then direct them to the appropiate resources. As you did for me.
>
>
> It´s not the place to say "I played JellyFish and it rolled the 62 it
> needed three times in a row." It IS the place to make informed
> questions or comments AFTER reading the 17 articles on "Software --
> does it cheat?" that are archived at:
>
> http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?menu+software,softwaredoesitcheat
I can't argue w/ this, except to say I doubt if many (any?) casual readers of this newsgroup
would know
of these resources. For example, soon I'll be negotiating the price of a very old townhouse.
Instead of
spending hours/days searching the Net for repair and care/feeding of oak floors, I went to the
"rec.woodworking" and
"alt.home.repair" I got many helpful responses and URLs.
As someone patiently reminded me in a private email (Thanks, SW) odd sequences
of rolls happen all the time in games played by flesh and blood opponents.
For me, these rolls are disturbing when they occur on my PC monitor, in the absence
of other people, drinks, etc. Guess, I'm not fully acclimated to a cyberworld.
I spend >60 hours a week w/ PCs and such, and I hope I never do reach the point
where I accept intreractions w/ a computer the same way as I interact w/ people.
After all these years, I still haven't met a PC that I wanted to take to bed or buy a
drink for.
>
>
> And that's why rec.games.backgammon has a FAQ, the WWW Backgammon
> Page, Backgammon Galore, and dozens of other informative websites
> where anyone can find an answer to frequently asked questions --
> without asking it yet again for the 10,000th time here!
See previous response. I didn't know folks were so sensitive here. It appears
if the same question keeps getting posted it may provoke flame reponses. I didn't
know this topic had been beat to death. Unfortunately for me, according to your logic
I should have checked resources that I didn't know existed before posting my message.
>
>
> Frequently Made Observations are similar to Frequently Asked
> Questions. They´re only missing the question mark.
See previous response.
After you've taken the time to write your well thought out response, I'm reluctant to state
that no person known to me as ever dug up and read a usenet FAQ before posting their
first message to a group. :-) I guess in a perfect cyberworld folks should read FAQs before
posting, but cyberspace will never be perfect.
MGM1>I guess the Rolling Stones are right on target when they sing "You always get what you
need"
CORRECTION:
I believe the refrain is "You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need"
I don't have a Rolling Stone lyric book nearby, so I still may not have it entirely right, but I
suspect
someone will correct it.
Mike
Paul Tanenbaum
"spcor" <sp...@netzero.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:56:41 GMT Paul Tanenbaum
> <ptane...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > When the software is being demo'd
> > to a new user, and potential sales prospect, it's obviously good
> > sense, not to mention courtesy, to give the opponent the opening
> > roll!
>
> If Jellyfish did that, then the opening roll would not be truly
random.
> To that extent the game would be rigged, it would be cheating, and it
Tell me, please please please tell me, that you didn't take my post
seriously.
> Enjoy!
I did.
> Dan
But maybe not the way you intended, Dan.
thehub
Mike Maguire wrote in message <3766FAEE...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
<snip>
>
>I believe the refrain is "You can't always get what you want, but you get
what you need"
>I don't have a Rolling Stone lyric book nearby, so I still may not have it
entirely right, but I
>suspect
>someone will correct it.
>
>Mike
I'll try.
"You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes, you get what
you need."
Steve
Gavin Anderson
Steve, you need to insert a 'you'll find' into the lyric (see below)
"You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes, YOU'LL FIND,
you get what you need."
Regards,
Gavin Anderson
Sapporo, Japan
Sander van Rijnswou
>
> Gosh, we're not very big Rolling Stones fans here on r.g.b are we!
>
> Steve, you need to insert a 'you'll find' into the lyric (see below)
>
> "You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes, YOU'LL FIND,
> you get what you need."
>
I think it's
You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you might
find you'll get what you need.
and later
You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you just
might find you'll get what you need.
> Regards,
>
> Gavin Anderson
> Sapporo, Japan
Sander
Daniel Murphy
<mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>As someone patiently reminded me in a private email (Thanks, SW) odd sequences
>of rolls happen all the time in games played by flesh and blood opponents.
>For me, these rolls are disturbing when they occur on my PC monitor, in the absence
>of other people, drinks, etc.
True ... I'll bet JellyFish is cursed more often than any living
player ...
>See previous response. I didn't know folks were so sensitive here. It appears
>if the same question keeps getting posted it may provoke flame reponses. I didn't
>know this topic had been beat to death.
Mike, thanks for your sober and reflective comments. It's not so much
that folks are sensitive, just bored when the same old same old. And
as internet and Usenet use grows, there seem to be more and more
people who don't know how to use either effectively and don't
understand what Usenet in particular is for -- and what's it not for.
>After you've taken the time to write your well thought out response, I'm reluctant to state
>that no person known to me as ever dug up and read a usenet FAQ before posting their
>first message to a group. :-)
Let alone the dozen articles in news.announce.newusers ... The FAQ of
a relevant newsgroup is often the first place I look for the answer to
some question I have.
>I guess in a perfect cyberworld folks should read FAQs before
>posting, but cyberspace will never be perfect.
And getting less perfect all the time. Isn't it wonderful? (Really!)
>I guess the Rolling Stones are right on target when they sing ...
>"You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need"
Close ... see this URL for the lyrics:
http://www.maikon.net/davem/archive/main/r/rolling_stones/you_cant_always_get_what_you_want.crd
There's also a searchable database of song lyrics at www.olga.net.
________________________________________________
Daniel Murphy www.cityraccoon.com/
Humlebæk Backgammon Klub www.hbgk.dk/
Raccoon on FIBS www.fibs.com/
Raccoon on GamesGrid too
"Always in a hurry, I never stop to worry
Do you see the time flashing by
Honey, got no money, I'm all sixes, sevens and nines
You got to roll me and call me the tumbling
Roll me and call me the tumbling dice"
Rodrigo Andrade
asking the same things over and over and over and over...
But you're not the sysop here; r.g.b is not regulated. Technically, I can
ask anything I want here related to backgammon, but I have the common sense
not to do so, like most people should.
I find the JF complaints particularly amusing, but the "Where can I find a
place to play BG on the Internet?" or the even more annoying "What is a good
backgammon program?" suck.
--
RODRIGO
===========================================================
"All religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man. He has
created an entire system of gods with nothing more than his carnal brain.
Just because he has an ego and cannot accept it, he has had to externalize
it into some great spiritual device he calls 'God.'"
- The Satanic Bible
Anton Szandor LaVey
Daniel Murphy
<gammonut@_R_E_M_O_V_E_worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>You're losing it, pal. I know it is very annoying to have different people
>asking the same things over and over and over and over...
It愀 not annoying at all, at least not to me. That's what the delete
key is for. More to the point, I think, is that asking questions which
have been asked over and over it is not a good way to find out
information, precisely because most people who read the same questions
over and over use the delete key with increasing frequency.
Ed Zell
>>always get what you need"
>CORRECTION:
> I believe the refrain is "You can't always get what you want, but you get
> what you need" I don't have a Rolling Stone lyric book nearby, so I still
> may not have it entirely right, but I suspect someone will correct it.
>
> Mike
"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you'll
find, you get what you need"
EZ
Graham Price
Mike Maguire <mg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<3765D84C...@worldnet.att.net>...
> REsults of another game w/ JF:
< meaningless drivel >
> by people. We're talking about all three games here. What do you think?
>
> Mike
>
I think you should roll your own dice and enter them manually for a few
thousand games and report those results. Takes the rng out of the picture
as you are the now the dice roller.
Graham.
Graham Price
Murat Kalinyaprak <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote in article
<7k53q6$3q...@taisp3.in-tch.com>...
> - JF wasn't checking those seeds for <65536 but for <35768
> and by golly it was again only Murat who had noticed it to
> make everybody else (including F. Dahl?) discover it.
But Murat, in the Jellyfish Users Manual 1994-97 (assuming you have a
registered copy)
on page 26 it states clearly:
": Seed. Must be in the range 0 to 32000.
If you set seed = 0, JellyFish will choose a random seed for you."
Seemed pretty clear to me.
Graham.
Ian Shaw
Murat Kalinyaprak wrote in message <7jl3gn$1p...@taisp3.in-tch.com>...
>On 1999/05/17 Ian Shaw wrote:
>
>> Murat Kalinyaprak wrote <7hdqqv$i9...@taisp3.in-tch.com>...
>
>>>I had in the past offered that I would bet money on
>>>guessing JF's future dice rolls, proportionately to
>>>the odds of the called rolls actually happening or
>>>not happening. I think I could make the same offer
>>>much more comfortably about SW's rolls...
>
>>I believe in all sorts of stuff which is outside the
>>bounds of conventional Western science, but I'll take
>>you up on this. How about: You name the frequency with
>>which you can call the roll. I suggest you do some tests
>>beforehand to get a good feel for your accuracy. We'll
>>set the odds at half way between that and random - the
>>better you are, the more you gain; the more mistaken you
>>are, the more I gain.
>
>Ian, I just saw this old message of yours in Dejanews.
>You were making the same argument as Daniel Murphy is
>making in one of his messages I read a few minutes ago.
>I'll just respond to both of you at once. Sorry, but
>you guys don't get the essence of this bet. You, among
>and along countless other people, argue that JF's dice
>rolls are random.
Hi Murat. Just for the sake of being pedantically accurate, I'll re-state
that I believe that JF's dice are NOT RANDOM. I believe that they are based
on an algorithm that generates absolutely predictable numbers from two
variables, the SEED and COUNTER. Other factors such as the board position,
player on roll, and match length have absolutely no effect on the dice roll
generated. I further believe that the algorithm can be termed PSEUDO-RANDOM
in that the rolls can not be predicted more accurately than random guessing
would predict them.
>The odds I propose are just as safe
>for you since if you are right you won't lose anything.
>But if you are wrong, then the more you are wrong the
>more you will lose (up to an unknown percentage).
I would like the same conditions to apply to you: the more YOU are wrong,
the more YOU will lose. My original proposal was an attempt to put the bet
on an equal risk to us both, but where we both believed we were getting
favourable odds. As you would have it, if you are right you will win and I
will lose; if I am right we will both break even. This does not seem fair to
me.
>I'm not betting on this for the sake of gambling and making
>or losing money. If you want to make money at gambling,
>you can take a trip to Las Vegas... I'm offering you a
>safe bet where if you are right you have nothing to
>worry about losing.
If I'm right I might still lose, even at fair odds. (Hadler posted an
excellent explanation, which I'll not repeat.) That's why I'm only
interested in betting money if I believe I'm getting better than fair odds.
I suspect that we are unlikely to agree on a bet for money, so here is
another proposal:
You play JellyFish as many times as you like, using settings of SEED and
COUNTER for which you do not know the upcoming rolls. Whenever you feel like
it, write down a prediction before making a roll. This could be anything
which can be calculated as a probability, e.g. as specific as "I bet JF
rolls 66, followed by 32 then a 41", as vague as "I bet I get a 5 in the
next three rolls". If you are predicting entering/staying on the bar or
behind a prime, then you should also record the board position so that the
probability can be calculated afterward (this could be done by saving the
position as a .pos file with a suitable filename such as "JF enters
again.pos". Then record whether your prediction was correct.
When you feel you have done enough, post your results on the newsgroup. I
will do my best to calculate the probabilities involved and determine how
accurate you are at predicting rolls compared to chance.
I trust you to collect and report your findings fairly and accurately;
although I disagree with many of your statements, I don't believe that you
will cheat.
Happy predicting. May the force be with you!
--
Regards
Ian Shaw (ian on FIBS)
Ian Shaw
Murat Kalinyaprak wrote in message <7jufu4$2u...@taisp3.in-tch.com>...
>Just to remind and keep things clear, I never claimed
>that JF's rigged dice was benefiting itself more than
>its opponents...
>
Now I AM confused. I think I'd better ask a couple of questions:
What do you mean by the term "rigged"?
In what way do you consider JF's dice to be "rigged"?
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Mike Maguire wrote:
>>Since the feelings are running so high in this newsgroup
>>I'm going to put off some other projects and dig up some
>>empirical data on JF roll behavior.
>Excellent idea! We like scrupulously obtained empirical
>data so much better than anecdotal observations and whining.
If I had any expectations left that you guys have
any sense of consistency and feeling of fairness,
I would have expected that you would have asked
the same scrupulously obtained empirical data for
that square root of match legth baloney in FIBS'
rating formula or other similar stuff discussed
here but I don't/won't...
>Which is why most of the whiners and observers never get
>around to collecting any data.
How do you know...? Would you pay $36.00 for it
or do you want my data for free...? Or how about
betting against my data, err, I mean "anectodal
observations"...?
>... and the Backgammon Gods have decreed: "Let their
>articles be archived at www.bkgm.com/archive.html!" It´s
>a good place to start before embarking on a long tedious
>mathematical data dig.
Hah, hah, haa... "Club members" praising each other
to such a degree is amusing. Why would anybody give
up the entire newsgroup archive and limit themselves
to contents of one person's web page...? Because you
(singular and/or plural) worship him as "Backgammon
Gods"...? Why don't you folks get real, will you...
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat Kalinyaprak writes:
>> - Murat has been challenging any and all readers of this
>> newsgroup (including the math phd's, computer scientists,
>> rockets scientists and the rest) to post here an algorithm
>> that could mimic JF's dice bug but nobody has yet been
>> able to do so.
>Nope. No one has chosen to do so. Plenty of people are
>able to do so.
And how do you know or should we know this...?
>How much will you pay me to post such an algorithm? If you
>pay me an adequate consulting fee, I'll be happy to fulfill
>your request.
Considering that a *buggy* dice rolling algorithm
may not be worth more than twenty-five cents and
considering that F. Dahl could collect the prize
in a matter of minutes by posting the "real thing",
it wouldn't be very smart of me to offer a prize
big enough to be "adequate consulting fee" for such
highly intelligent people like you now, would it...?
But, I had once offered $100 to somebody who had
claimed that it would be a *boringly* easy task and
I had doubled it (practicing my cube skills:) to $200
for anybody who could do it and would happen to be
a rocket-scientist. I could certainly extend the same
offers to you, including the doubling of the prize if
you happen to be a rocket-scientist...
If I could post such an algorithm myself, I wouldn't
have stooped to asking money for it and would have
done it for the fame and glory. Since I myself can't
do it, what's left for me to do is to see if anybody
else can do it or not. And you know what? You couldn't
possibly pay me enough to make me give up the fame and
glory that I may get from daring any and all of you
that none of you will be able to post here an algorithm
which can emulate JF's dice bug...
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat Kalinyaprak wrote:
>>- JF wasn't checking those seeds for <65536 but for <35768
>>and by golly it was again only Murat who had noticed it to
>>make everybody else (including F. Dahl?) discover it.
>But Murat, in the Jellyfish Users Manual 1994-97 (assuming
>you have a registered copy) on page 26 it states clearly:
>": Seed. Must be in the range 0 to 32000. If you set seed
>= 0, JellyFish will choose a random seed for you."
>Seemed pretty clear to me.
Yes, it does indeed seem pretty clear to me also but
where are you trying to get with it doesn't seem as
clear... Are you saying that F. Dahl hadn't read the
manual either, FCOL (for crying out loud)...?
Unless you are trying to join that certain crowd who
mindlessly argues always against me here, you owe me
to ask F. Dahl the above question, preferably openly
in this newsgroup... After all, he would deserve and
appreciate an opportunity to get his story straight,
wouldn't you say...? So, even if you don't think you
owe it to me, at least do it as a favor to him... :)
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>On 11 Jun 1999 Murat Kalinyaprak wrote:
>>Did you get that "Mr. Rocket-Scientist"...?
>>Why don't you make known where you live just in
>>case some of us may want to avoid the area for
>>fear that you may be contagious...
>This, that and another similar post indicates that you´ve
>run entirely out of new ways to repeat the same ideas and
>have nothing left but misplaced sarcasm and insults for
>some of the more productive and interesting participants
>in this newsgroup. MK, your contributions were already
>getting stale, and now they're not even civil enough to
>bother with. In the future, count me out.
As would be expected from the members of the "pack" (or
"club"), you seem to lack any integrity and fairness...
Certain people seem to feel they own this newsgroup and
have been biting the unsuspecting newcomers who made the
mistake of wandering into their neighborhood, making any
comments about JF/SW/FIBS dice being rigged, etc. It is,
of course, only when someone bites back one of their kind
that they come to each other's defense ever more wrongly.
Let's take a look at what Chuck Bower had written in his
post to which I had replied:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"MK...EXACTLY correct?" I'd better reread that post.
There's a first time for everything.
One day when I was a kid, my Dad offered me a betting game:
"Heads I win; tails you lose." Murat's offer is somewhat
analogous to "Heads I win; tails we tie." Murat can never
lose. The WORST he can do is tie. Daniel can never win.
The BEST he can do is tie. If that sounds fair, I'm glad
you don't live in my neighborhood.
As far as the statement "...just forget about (Daniel), and
from his responses to this thread that would not be a large
loss", that may be appropriate action for closed minded
people not interested in learning more about backgammon.
For most of the rest of us, following such advice would be
a considerable loss.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now, Daniel, can you see that he starts out by making an
unprovoked/uncalled-for sarcastic remark about "MK"...?
After putting his sarcasting foot in his mouth yet once
more, do you see who is saying anything about anybody's
"neighborhood" at the end of the second paragraph...?
Obviously the answers to the above must be "no" or else
you would have scolded him before you scolded me...? :)
But, hey, in his last paragraph Chuck Bower comes to
Daniel's defence, so what more would be appropriate for
Daniel to scratch his buddy's back in return...? I sure
hadn't expected Chuck to scold you for having addressed
me using "civil" terms like "boy", either...
As far as counting you out, I don't count anybody out.
I do (and others may also) have things to learn even
from the Chuck Bowers and Daniel Murphys of this world...
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
> Murat Kalinyaprak writes:
>> Why...? The issue is whether JF's dice is rigged or
>> not. If I claim that I can predict JF's dice 70% of
>> the time but can only predict 57% of the time, would
>> that prove to you that JF's dice is random...? The
>> magic number here is 50% and if you can't see that,
>> it's a pity... :(
>The magic number's 50%, is it? Great. Fair odds on a
>50% random event are 1:1, so I'm willing to accept your
>wager at those odds.
If you're trying to take advantage of misexpressions,
shame on you Gary... :) Obviously what was meant was
percentages relative to the odds, not pure number of
guesses...
>I hope the following conditions are acceptable to you:
>1) We'll have a mutually trusted third party run a copy
Without quoting entire paragraphs, this is acceptable.
>2) Before every roll (yours and JF's), you will report
>your prediction of what that roll will be to me.....
No. I never offered to make a guess on each and every
roll but only whenever I choose to do so...
>3) You must predict the numbers on both dice. I'm....
No. The purpose isn't guessing rolls but guessing what
situations/events may happen more often than normal. I
offered that I could make a guess using any expression
that would yield perhaps complex but calculable odds...
(For example: a 6 or a 4 but not a 3).
>4) The amount owed will be recorded and will accumulate
>5) If either of us come to the conclusion that you are
>6) If any irregularities are found in the results of the
Please see my similar offers regarding these...
>7) You must perform the predictions entirely on your own
>and not consult any other person or use computer assistance
>when predicting JF's rolls.
I won't use a computer and if there was any others
who could do better at it than me, they would have
perhaps offered you guys similar bets based on odds
even more favorable to you then mine are...
>I hope you find the description above reasonable. If you
>would prefer some other conditions, please follow up to this
>article and perhaps we can come to some other agreement.
I think I was fairly clear on the basics from the
beginning but you might have missed some articles
in the thread...
>I am also interested in your or anybody else's ability
>to predict pseudo-random numbers derived from generator's
>other than JF's. Please let me know if you are interested
>in conducting this experiment with other PRNGs of my choice
>(the conditions in those cases will be that I publish the
>source code for the PRNG in advance and the third party
>will use this generator to choose the dice and not JF.
I have no such intentions but what's included in the
definition of pseudo-random? Does it mean that the
rolls aren't in some ways derived from static contents
of files but produced by a **uniform** algorithm...?
(By "uniform" I mean same code applying to the entire
range of seeds).
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat Kalinyaprak writes:
>> - Murat has been challenging any and all readers of this
>> newsgroup (including the math phd's, computer scientists,
>> rockets scientists and the rest) to post here an algorithm
>> that could mimic JF's dice bug but nobody has yet been
>> able to do so. Therefore Murat concluded that JF's dice
>> rolls must not be coming from an algorithm (at least not
>> from a straight-forward one). Does anyone have a problem
>> with this conclusion...?
>Yes, I have a problem with any non sequitur. You are
>essentially claiming "A can cause B; I see B; therefore
>A must be happening".
After I had discovered it, I had described the said
bug's manifestations quite in detail and afterwards
I had tried my best to argue why an ("single-path"?)
algorithm couldn't produce the same bug/results.
Since then all I heard back is this endless beating
around the bush. Enough time wasted on this already.
Why don't one of you guys spend a few hours (or was
it a few minutes?) to post such an algorithm here
and get done with it once for all. Better yet, why
don't you guys spend your precious time and energy
to talk F. Dahl into posting that (what I would deem
buggy/worthless) algorithm instead of wearing me out
with unproductive arguments...
>None of the other questions in your article are new.
I didn't say they were new. I said they were still
unanswered...
>Many people in this newsgroup posted answers to them
>the first time; rather than have us reiterate those
>answers, perhaps you might like to use Deja News to
>recall what we said at the time?
Debating on these issues may a be dirty job that we
have to do but if we want to do it then we have to
do it... I say that those questions are unanswered
as of yet. Unless you can point out the articles you
are talking about, my argument stands. If you are
unwilling to do the work, it's not my problem and it
doesn't invalidate my claim...
>While we're repeating old questions, I notice you still
>haven't answered the very first question I asked you
>almost a year ago. It's still around, in case you now
>have an answer:
My initial questioning whether JF made use of knowing
all rolls ahead of time is technically still valid but
by now I would say that it's very unlikely. After that,
I speculated on other possibilities and lately I quit
speculating openly any further (for reasons I explained
not too long ago also). As for playing against JF for
money, if it were convenient I would have done it as
early as a couple of months ago, when I had become
convinced that I can beat it consistently. I'm afraid
that I may change my play (to lose) under the pressure
of gambling but I have a feeling that I'll end up doing
it some day regardless. Who would mind losing a few
bucks to JF with the cameras rolling... :) And if I
won, wouldn't that be worth even more than the few
buck I would instead earn...? (Not to mention the many
millions I would make from all the books, web page
subcriptions, etc. I would sell forever after:)...
MK
Gary Wong
> Daniel Murphy wrote...
> >Mike Maguire wrote:
> >>Since the feelings are running so high in this newsgroup
> >>I'm going to put off some other projects and dig up some
> >>empirical data on JF roll behavior.
>
> >Excellent idea! We like scrupulously obtained empirical
> >data so much better than anecdotal observations and whining.
>
> If I had any expectations left that you guys have
> any sense of consistency and feeling of fairness,
> I would have expected that you would have asked
> the same scrupulously obtained empirical data for
> that square root of match legth baloney in FIBS'
I'm not sure who "you guys" are, but people have certainly been collecting
experimental data and attempting to verify FIBS predicted win rates (vs.
match length) long before you questioned it. The earliest I can find is
referenced in a discussion between David Montgomery and Walter Trice at:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=109947462
My own attempt is described at:
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~gary/backgammon/elo.html