Just played my last game at (yuk!) Netgammon
Onionhead
I have always loved Netgammon in every respect, except for the crazy
dice. No matter what ANYBODY says, the dice are NOT random. Nobody can
repeat the same pattern of great winning and losing streaks so many
times with random dice. Unless I had a mini stroke or something, I
just don't see how I can go from nearly unbeatable to 2 and 20
overnight! - AGAIN!
Actually, the stroke explanation doesn't even work, because this has
happened over and over. I thought things might be better with the new
software, but the extremes seem greater now.
It's a real shame that, for reasons beyond my comprehension, they
CHOOSE to keep the dice fixed.
Please, don't even try to debate this issue anymore. It is a FACT that
the dice there are not random. I don't know why, so don't ask me. I
don't know HOW they have them fixed to do what they do, so don't ask
me that either. I DO know that other people have told me about their
similar experiences. Too many for this to be a coincidence.
Sure, I love to win, but I can accept a fair defeat. At present,
neither victory nor defeat is fair at Netgammon. All I'd like to do is
to be able to play fair matches, and to be able to get some real idea
of how good a player I am. At this point, that's impossible, and I
regret subscribing. I guess all I (we) can hope for is a change in
policy there.
Kenny Lee Smith
Onionhead <jgr...@nowhere.com> wrote in article
<3502154c....@news.supernews.com>...
> I have always loved Netgammon in every respect, except for the crazy
> dice. No matter what ANYBODY says, the dice are NOT random. Nobody can
> repeat the same pattern of great winning and losing streaks so many
> times with random dice. Unless I had a mini stroke or something, I
> just don't see how I can go from nearly unbeatable to 2 and 20
> overnight! - AGAIN!
I share your opinion on both Netgammon and Games Grid. The dice are
bizarre!
Why they continue doing this is beyond me also. I hardly ever play at
either
one anymore because it messes me up for real dice play.
I definitely am not renewing at either one.
--
Kenny Lee Smith <kl...@premiernet.net>
John Goodwin
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 04:11:50 GMT, jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead)
wrote:
>I have always loved Netgammon in every respect, except for the crazy
>dice. No matter what ANYBODY says, the dice are NOT random. Nobody can
>repeat the same pattern of great winning and losing streaks so many
>times with random dice. Unless I had a mini stroke or something, I
>just don't see how I can go from nearly unbeatable to 2 and 20
>overnight! - AGAIN!
>
>Actually, the stroke explanation doesn't even work, because this has
>happened over and over. I thought things might be better with the new
>software, but the extremes seem greater now.
>
>It's a real shame that, for reasons beyond my comprehension, they
>CHOOSE to keep the dice fixed.
>
>Please, don't even try to debate this issue anymore. It is a FACT that
>the dice there are not random. I don't know why, so don't ask me. I
>don't know HOW they have them fixed to do what they do, so don't ask
>me that either. I DO know that other people have told me about their
>similar experiences. Too many for this to be a coincidence.
>
>Sure, I love to win, but I can accept a fair defeat. At present,
>neither victory nor defeat is fair at Netgammon. All I'd like to do is
>to be able to play fair matches, and to be able to get some real idea
>of how good a player I am. At this point, that's impossible, and I
>regret subscribing. I guess all I (we) can hope for is a change in
>policy there.
>
This allegation has been made here before, in particular, the win
streak/lose streak syndrome.
What no Netgammon player seems to have done is actually ask for a
response from the organisers (only hearsay has been published here as
far as I am aware). It would be most useful if one of their
disgruntled customers put the accusation to them, and reported their
response (or lack thereof).
It would be also be instructive if two Netgammon players, one who
believed he was on a winning streak, and one who believed he was on a
losing streak, could play some games where the winning streak player
tried to throw each game.
If Netgammon is 'cheating' in the way asserted, the resulting games
would should make it obvious.
The only motive put forward by those claiming unfair dice at NetGammon
is that they are rigging the matches to make sure that everyone wins a
share and loses a share.
If you play devil's advocate for a moment, and try to work out how you
would implement such a scheme, you will discover that it is a very
tall order, and would, in any case, not yield streaks as have been
described. (assuming NetGammon is not able to dictate who plays whom).
J.G.
Stephen Hubbard
jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead) wrote:
<snip woeful "tale of two dice">
Why don't you try FIBS? If you decide the dice are fixed there also,
at least you have some small solace that you didn't have to pay for
the service.
;)
--
Remove the (x)s to reply
Stephen Hubbard
xxxthe...@mindspring.com
Marie1948
><snip woeful "tale of two dice">
>
>
Did you people ever stop to consider it's not the dice rolls
that determine who wins or loses, but the MOVES you make
with the rolls you get?
You can take 2 people, a novice and a master, give them the
same rolls and I'm sure they will make different moves with
those rolls.
Stop blaming the dice and start considering the real reason a
person wins or loses a game.
HOW THEY MOVE with the rolls they get.
~ end of my 2 cents ~
Onionhead
>
>This allegation has been made here before, in particular, the win
>streak/lose streak syndrome.
>
>What no Netgammon player seems to have done is actually ask for a
>response from the organisers (only hearsay has been published here as
>far as I am aware). It would be most useful if one of their
>disgruntled customers put the accusation to them, and reported their
>response (or lack thereof).
>
I did write to them last year, and they claimed the dice were random.
I did not bother to reply. I have no facts, just observations, so
that's all I can present.
>It would be also be instructive if two Netgammon players, one who
>believed he was on a winning streak, and one who believed he was on a
>losing streak, could play some games where the winning streak player
>tried to throw each game.
>
That's a great idea! If anybody wants to do that with me, I'd love to
try it. Send e-mail to jma...@enteract.com, and we can set up a time.
I am on a major losing streak, so it would have to be a "winner".
>If Netgammon is 'cheating' in the way asserted, the resulting games
>would should make it obvious.
>
>The only motive put forward by those claiming unfair dice at NetGammon
>is that they are rigging the matches to make sure that everyone wins a
>share and loses a share.
>
>If you play devil's advocate for a moment, and try to work out how you
>would implement such a scheme, you will discover that it is a very
>tall order, and would, in any case, not yield streaks as have been
>described. (assuming NetGammon is not able to dictate who plays whom).
Like I said in my original post, don't ask me how or why this is
happening. I don't have an answer for either. The only thing I KNOW is
that ever since Netgammon started I have had MANY and almost CONSTANT
huge winning and losing streaks. That's what I KNOW. I have also
HEARD many other people here and on Netgammon state similar
situations. Playing devil's advocate is fine, and I agree with your
last paragraph - it would be a very tall order for them to do this.
On the other hand, if Netgammon is not doing this, what IS the
explanation for it? Something psychological on all our parts? I can't
say absolutely no, but come on...
Just to be a little more specific... When Netgammon was free, I would
occasionally start over with a new user name. I did this maybe 6
times. The same pattern would happen EVERY TIME. I would shoot up to
about 1750 - 1800 in elo. Then I would drop down to the low 1600s very
quickly. Then the winning and losing streaks would begin. This would
happen EVERY TIME. It drove me nuts, so I quit playing for a few
months.
Then I heard that they released version 4 of the software. The biggest
change (and this is according to them), is in the way the dice are
thrown. Somebody(s) had found a way to predict the rolls in advance.
Now, they say, they can change the system at any time, which would
prevent any further predictions. Fine. I started playing, and shot WAY
up. I was in heaven I was winning almost all my matches, and could do
no wrong. This went on for a LONG time. Then several days ago, they
made an announcement that they had caught some high ranking people
cheating, and had sanctioned them. Since then, I'm about 4 - 40 in my
matched. I don't know it's just coincidence, or of the two events are
related. Anyway, that's my history at Netgammon.
>
>J.G.
>
>
Kenny Lee Smith
Onionhead <jgr...@nowhere.com> wrote in article
<3502ad6...@news.supernews.com>...
> On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 09:28:59 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
> Goodwin) wrote:
>
> Like I said in my original post, don't ask me how or why this is
> happening. I don't have an answer for either. The only thing I KNOW is
> that ever since Netgammon started I have had MANY and almost CONSTANT
> huge winning and losing streaks. That's what I KNOW. I have also
> HEARD many other people here and on Netgammon state similar
> situations. Playing devil's advocate is fine, and I agree with your
> last paragraph - it would be a very tall order for them to do this.
> On the other hand, if Netgammon is not doing this, what IS the
> explanation for it? Something psychological on all our parts? I can't
> say absolutely no, but come on...
I was told that the reason that both Netgammon and Games Grid rig the
games in the manner you describe is to keep people playing longer.
That is, if you have attained a high rating and you start to lose it you
will
keep playing until you regain it.
This explanation is of course not verifiable but it is the one that makes
sense to me.
Donald Kahn
>
>Then I heard that they released version 4 of the software. The biggest
>change (and this is according to them), is in the way the dice are
>thrown. Somebody(s) had found a way to predict the rolls in advance.
>Now, they say, they can change the system at any time, which would
>prevent any further predictions. Fine. I started playing, and shot WAY
>up. I was in heaven I was winning almost all my matches, and could do
>no wrong. This went on for a LONG time. Then several days ago, they
>made an announcement that they had caught some high ranking people
>cheating, and had sanctioned them. Since then, I'm about 4 - 40 in my
>matched. I don't know it's just coincidence, or of the two events are
>related. Anyway, that's my history at Netgammon.
>>
>>J.G.
>>
>>
deekay
Rodrigo Andrade
> ~ end of my 2 cents ~
Stick'em up in your ass, and listen!!!
I can't say anything about Netgammon, but I suspect the dice ARE biased
on GG. Like Kenny said, they'll let you raise your rating, then drop it,
so you'll work hard to get it back up. OR they will give you a whole
bunch of good rolls, then a whole bunch of bad rolls (namely 52, 21, and
I don't think there's anything worse than that), so you'll be happy w/
your win/loss share and will keep playing (and paying).
In GG, I started off well, my rating rose from 1500 to the 1700's, now
I'm losing match after match, and my rating is dropping to the 1200's.
If you're half as good as you say you are, Marie, why don't you get your
hands on REAL, UNBIASED dice and play, huh???
Let's all keep in mind that backgammon is GAMBLING, it DOES take a small
percentage of luck to win.
Rodrigo
Rodrigo Andrade
Yeah, but sometimes you just begin to wonder how random the dice are.
I'm very skeptical about Games Grid. I had a BIG luck streak in the 1st
week there, but now my rating is dropping. It rose from 1500 to the
1700's, now it's dropping to around 1200.
Rodrigo
Crashh
Marie1948 wrote in message
<19980308134...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>~ end of my 2 cents ~
Do you mean you have to move considering ALL possible rolls and
combinations?
Hmm........I think you're on to something. :-)
Marie1948
>If you're half as good as you say you are, Marie, why don't you get your
>hands on REAL, UNBIASED dice and play, huh???
HUH?
I *NEVER* said I was good.
Matter of fact, I suck.
Geez, get the facts straight.
Tom Vavasour
in reply to jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead)
>the dice there are not random. I don't know why, so don't ask me. I
>don't know HOW they have them fixed to do what they do, so don't ask
>me that either. I DO know that other people have told me about their
>similar experiences. Too many for this to be a coincidence.
I'm not going to try and argue with you on this but I do have some
questions.
How difficult would it be to programme a dice generator to take
account of the match position when rolling dice?
Wouldn't this involve teaching it to play bg, and then telling it to
produce certain dice for each player.
What would be the motive for doing this?
Who would gain from a biased generator?
If the dice are randomly biased. ie the rolls don't follow the same
distribution as a truly random set, but don't favour one player or
another specifically, why would this make any difference to the
win/loss ratio's?
IMO, we play far more games of BG online than we ever managed face to
face, so we have more opportunity to see patterns.
I restarted playing at FIBS after a break of 6 mths or so. On my
return I won 12 matches straight. "Woohoo" I thought to myself, you've
still got it old boy. Then I lost 13 straight immediately afterwards.
Now I have two theories. Someone on the BG sever is taking the time to
specifically programme the computer to manipulate my win/loss record,
for no gain, with extreme difficulty, or ...streaks happen. Guess
which option I choose. I lost the final of a tourney once to 7
doubles in a row. RIGGED.. yeah right...shit happens
...Tom
====================
"Better at" doesn't equal "Better than"
======================
Ernst M. Morak
kl...@premiernet.net,Unet1 wrote at 10:29 on 08.03.98
to rec.games.backgammon about "Re: Just played my last game at (yuk!)
Netgammon":
-----------------------------
>I share your opinion on both Netgammon and Games Grid. The dice are
>bizarre!
(Though
points dont always tell everything)
bye Ernst
-----------------------------
Ernst MORAK
Country: Austria
City: Graz
e.m...@magnet.at
--- OffRoad 1.9x registered to Ernst Morak
Phil Luck
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 18:16:50 GMT, don...@easynet.co.uk (Donald Kahn)
wrote:
In case anyone should think that I wrote the main paragraph above, I
didn't.
Donald seems to have accidentally removed the "xxxx wrote" from the
top of his post, and then accidentally left my signature in place.
Just a simple accident I'm sure, but the above paragraph was in fact
written by "onionhead".
J.G.
intn...@aol.com
I heard a similar complaint about FIBS last night from a (higher-ranking)
player who was losing our match ... I certainly have felt that Netgammon
dice were DIFFERENT from the dice on FIBS, and have indulged the urge to
blame them for my hot and cold streaks. But I have the same streaks on FIBS,
and I suspect that if I played much over a real table with real dice the
same thing would happen. The most telling argument against the "bad
algorithm" theory for me is that there is really no such thing as "good"
rolls and "bad" rolls ... what rolls are good and bad depends mostly on the
board situation at any given time. It is hard for me to imagine how any
built-in lack of randomness could (a) consistently result in the wrong roll
at the wrong time AND (b) do so only for one of the two players, following
that player from match to match. No, there are only two explanations that I
have found plausible. The first and more plausible is that there are Dice
Gods whose sole mission in life is to make backgammon players miserable, and
who have the power to alter the course of electrons flowing through computer
circuits in such a way as to cause me to throw exactly the wrong thing, and
my opponent to throw exactly the right thing, game after game as my rating
threatens to reach the level to which I am rightfully entitled. The second,
and relatively unlikely explanation, is that there is no malevolent force
involved, and that my random walk through backgammonland is no different from
my path through life itself ... pushed hither and yon by impersonal forces
acting according to natural law, but generally winding up approximately where
I began ... alanback
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Onionhead
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:09:47 +0100, e.m...@magnet.at (Ernst M. Morak)
wrote:
>kl...@premiernet.net,Unet1 wrote at 10:29 on 08.03.98 =20
>to rec.games.backgammon about "Re: Just played my last game at (yuk!)=20
>Netgammon":=20
>-----------------------------=20
>=20
>>I share your opinion on both Netgammon and Games Grid. The dice are=20
>>bizarre!=20
>=20
>I would very much like to know how much ELO points both of U had.=20
>(Though =20
>points dont always tell everything)=20
>bye Ernst=20
>-----------------------------=20
>Ernst MORAK=20
>Country: Austria=20
>City: Graz=20
>e.m...@magnet.at=20
>=20
>--- OffRoad 1.9x registered to Ernst Morak=20
My elo is usually in the high 1600s. Recently it was as high as 1813.
It has dropped back down to about 1740.
I'm not saying that the funny dice have hurt my elo. They may have
helped it overall. I don't know - and that's the point - because of
the screwy dice, that rating is meaningless.
I'm not complaining about losing. Losing has nothing to do with this.
I'm complaining about the non-random dice at Netgammon. I don't want
to win 15 matches in a row if it's not fair, and I don't want to lose
15 in a row unfairly either. I just want to play a * fair * game of
backgammon with other paople over the net. What's wrong with that?
Onionhead
On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 07:03:01 GMT, tom...@ihug.co.nz (Tom Vavasour)
wrote:
>in reply to jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead)
>>Please, don't even try to debate this issue anymore. It is a FACT that
>>the dice there are not random. I don't know why, so don't ask me. I
>>don't know HOW they have them fixed to do what they do, so don't ask
>>me that either. I DO know that other people have told me about their
>>similar experiences. Too many for this to be a coincidence.
>
>I'm not going to try and argue with you on this but I do have some
>questions.
>
>How difficult would it be to programme a dice generator to take
>account of the match position when rolling dice?
>
>Wouldn't this involve teaching it to play bg, and then telling it to
>produce certain dice for each player.
>
>What would be the motive for doing this?
>
>Who would gain from a biased generator?
>
>If the dice are randomly biased. ie the rolls don't follow the same
>distribution as a truly random set, but don't favour one player or
>another specifically, why would this make any difference to the
>win/loss ratio's?
As I said, I don't have any answers to the other questions about
motive, method, and so on, but as for the last paragraph...
Please understand that I am not complaining about losing. The dice may
actually be helping me overall. Who knows? I have trendous winning
streaks along with tremendous losing streaks. The point is that if the
dice are not random, then the game is not really backgammon. When the
dice are not random, they may still be even for both players, but
since neither of us know the "rules" they follow, it is impossible to
make moves based on any kind of probability. Obviously, that's a major
part of backgammon!
All I'm saying is that win or lose, I would like to play fair matches
on Netgammon. What is wrong with that? I paid to play backgammon
there, and in my very strong opinion, that's not what is being played
there.
Onionhead
>>
>>Then I heard that they released version 4 of the software. The biggest
>>change (and this is according to them), is in the way the dice are
>>thrown. Somebody(s) had found a way to predict the rolls in advance.
>>Now, they say, they can change the system at any time, which would
>>prevent any further predictions. Fine. I started playing, and shot WAY
>>up. I was in heaven I was winning almost all my matches, and could do
>>no wrong. This went on for a LONG time. Then several days ago, they
>>made an announcement that they had caught some high ranking people
>>cheating, and had sanctioned them. Since then, I'm about 4 - 40 in my
>>matched. I don't know it's just coincidence, or of the two events are
>>related. Anyway, that's my history at Netgammon.
>>>
>>>J.G.
>>>
>>>
>Obvious, isn't it? They are doing it just to annoy you.
>
>deekay
I don't know WHAT their motive is, but I do know that many other
paople have experienced the same problem. It's not just me. What is
wrong with wanting to be able to play a fair game of backgammon on a
server I have paid to use? I'm not complaining about losing. I'm
complaining about biased dice. Whether they help me or hurt me, I
don't want them. Ruins the whole game - lose, OR win.
Paul Ferguson
In article <350391f2...@newsch.es.co.nz> Tom Vavasour,
tom...@ihug.co.nz writes:
>How difficult would it be to programme a dice generator to take
>account of the match position when rolling dice?
>
>Wouldn't this involve teaching it to play bg, and then telling it to
>produce certain dice for each player.
>
Actually, I can think of a number of ways to "rig" the dice without
having to implement a complete backgammon playing algorithm.
Let's say the server figures player X has had a hot streak and
needs to lose a few games for humility sake. The server could
once every several moves apply changes like:
(1) If X rolls doubles, roll again until it is not doubles.
(2) If there is a roll that prevents X from moving, choose that roll
(e.g. X is on the bar).
(3) If a roll allows X to hit his opponent, roll a different roll.
Conversely, if there is a roll that hits X, give that roll to
his opponent.
(4) If X is behind in a running game, roll low numbers (1/2 or 2/3)
for him and/or roll doubles or high numbers for his opponent.
I'm sure you can think of many other options, which would be simple
to implement and require little or no knowledge of backgammon
play.
//fergy
Tom Vavasour
in reply to Paul Ferguson <fe...@nospam.com>
>to implement and require little or no knowledge of backgammon
>play.
OK...fine..marvelously simple for a busy programmer who has got
nothing better to do than piss off the people who provide the income
stream.
Try playing Jellyfish. You always end up sure that the bastard is
rigged. But why. Why bias a game that someone wants to give you money
for.
I'm sure all you guys believe in project 51 and think the X- files s a
documentary. The reason most of you think the dice are rigged is the
same reason people go to clairvoyants and astrologers
Kenny Lee Smith
>
> I don't know WHAT their motive is, but I do know that many other
> people have experienced the same problem. It's not just me. What is
> wrong with wanting to be able to play a fair game of backgammon on a
> server I have paid to use? I'm not complaining about losing. I'm
> complaining about biased dice. Whether they help me or hurt me, I
> don't want them. Ruins the whole game - lose, OR win.
Fair dice are bad for business, biased dice are good for business.
That's their motive.
The motive that makes sense to me is that both services want to keep
people playing more. Just like TV networks want better ratings and more
people watching their networks, and magazines want more subscribers.
If the dice were unbiased then a few players would have high ratings and
everyone else would have low ratings just like in real life.
The vast majority with low ratings would become frustrated and quit the
service.
The few with high ratings would become bored and quit.
In other words, the services are programmed to generate an even spread of
winners and losers and more play, which equals more income in membership
fees.
The better players will play more to try and regain their ratings and the
lesser
players will play more because they are winning against better players.
This fits the scenario described by everyone, which is, "I started playing
and
won till my rating reached a certain point then I started losing till my
rating
fell to a certain point, then I started winning again."
The main concern of both services at the end of the day is to add
memberships
and keep more people playing, therefore putting more money in their pocket.
Their main concern is not fair dice.
Kit Woolsey
Kenny Lee Smith (kl...@premiernet.net) wrote:
: The main concern of both services at the end of the day is to add
: memberships
: and keep more people playing, therefore putting more money in their pocket.
: Their main concern is not fair dice.
Oh get serious. Suppose you were operating a backgammon server for
profit. Would you really introduce biased dice, knowing that if the
public suspected that the dice weren't random the credibility of your
server would shrink to zero along with the membership? No Way! The
profit motive of the services is the best argument for the
operators making as sure as possible that the dice are unbiased.
Kit
Kenny Lee Smith
Kit Woolsey <kwoo...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<kwoolseyE...@netcom.com>...
>
>
> Oh get serious. Suppose you were operating a backgammon server for
> profit. Would you really introduce biased dice, knowing that if the
> public suspected that the dice weren't random the credibility of your
> server would shrink to zero along with the membership? No Way! The
> profit motive of the services is the best argument for the
> operators making as sure as possible that the dice are unbiased.
Exciting play is what keeps the masses coming in. Nothing more
exciting than hitting those long shots! Saving a game that was lost.
Turning back that double you shouldn't have taken.
Fair dice play would be just like real life. Players that aren't very good
would continue to lose and quit the service...or never sign up in the
first place. Good players would continually win and eventually get
bored. That's the way it works in real life. If you are playing
someone that continually loses money to you, will he keep
playing? No. He will quit or find someone that he can beat to play.
In the town I live in I used to have a lot of people I would play
backgammon
with. They got tired of losing their money to me and won't play me
anymore.
It's just me and one other guy that I have a hard time beating and we
stay pretty even.
Now if you believe the dice on Games Grid and Netgammon are like real
life, then nothing anyone says will change your mind. Just a bunch
of losers complaining about bad dice. If you believe that the services
dice are rigged, as I do, then this is the motive that makes sense.
See you at the Online Casino's my friend. :-)
Kevin Bastian
LOL!
I'll bet you set Kit straight! ;-)
Kenny Lee Smith <kl...@premiernet.net> wrote in article
<01bd4bbc$f9a1b060$32e0e5cd@vogmudet>...
Daniel Murphy
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 15:07:20 GMT, jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead) wrote
about his experience with winning and losing streaks on Netgammon:
>I have no facts, just observations, so that's all I can present.
Fair enough. If you want to speculate about a server's dice, I don't
think that's at all useful without facts. But we can talk usefully
about observations -- if we can keep in mind what is and what is not a
fact.
>Like I said in my original post, don't ask me how or why this is
>happening. I don't have an answer for either. The only thing I KNOW is
>that ever since Netgammon started I have had MANY and almost CONSTANT
>huge winning and losing streaks. That's what I KNOW.
Well, here's what I know. In backgammon, winning and losing streaks
are normal, natural and expected. They happen to everyone who plays a
lot of backgammon on any internet server or in real life. They happen
to bad players, to average players, and to good players. They happen
to every frequent player I know.
I think they happen more often to average players. Bad players won't
have too many long winning streaks. Good players shouldn't have too
many long losing streaks. Average players seem most likely to benefit
from a streak of hot dice, or suffer from a streak of bad rolling.
Does that seem reasonable? I think so.
But consider this: On FIBS, where I play, even the best players see
their ratings go up and down by large amounts. Among these players,
swings of 100 or more points are not unusual. Swings of 200 or more
points are less usual but they still happen -- it happened to one of
the best players on FIBS!
Here's another -- perhaps better -- example. "yabe," a computer
program that always plays the same, hmmm, not great but above average
game, was rated 1900 two days ago and was back down to 1740 yesterday.
The bots play a lot, so they can win or lose a lot of points quickly
-- but that's a swing of 160 points in just two days' worth of 1-point
matches!
Now here's something else I've observed. Maybe others have observed
this too. There seems to be something about playing against a computer
or on an internet server that's different from playing in real life.
The unlucky rolls and losing streaks are more noticeable. They seem
to be more "impossible" -- and a whole lot more irritating!
I'm not sure why this is. Maybe because you see the result in your
rating after every match. Maybe because the dice are out of your
control. Maybe because the pace is faster. Everything -- including
those "miracle" rolls -- seems to happen so quickly. Maybe because a
lot of us play so much more on the internet than in real life.
Or maybe because -- and it's perfectly natural -- people tend to blame
their losing streaks on bad dice, and credit excellent play for their
winning streaks. But actually -- well, I see two possibilities.
What happens when you're losing?
One possibility is that you're such a good player that you don't let a
losing streak bother you. You keep playing your same good game, but
you're unlucky. Sooner or later, your luck turns around.
Another -- and to me more likely -- possibility is that you *do* let
your losing streak bother you. You blame the dice. You don't wonder if
perhaps you're not playing as well as you could. Or worse -- you start
questioning your own judgment. You become afraid to make the best
plays and cube decisions. You play worse when you're losing. As a
result, you lose more. Your losing streak lasts longer.
What happens when you're winning? You become more confident. You don't
play like you're afraid to lose. You make the right plays and the
right cube decisions. As a result (and come on, now, admit it --
you're a little lucky too, right?) you win more. Your winning streak
lasts longer.
If these observations of mine are useful to other backgammon players,
great. I know that thinking about them once in a while helps me play
better. So just one more thing -- in another post Onionhead wrote:
>Please, don't even try to debate this issue anymore. It is a FACT that
>the dice there are not random.
It doesn't seem to be a "fact" to me! It seems to be an observation
(and didn't Onionhead just say he didn't have any facts?). It would
certainly be an interesting fact, if it were a fact -- but you'll need
facts to prove it. And please, without any facts, there hardly seems
to be anything worth debating.
_______________________________________________
Daniel Murphy http://www.cityraccoon.com/
Anthony Patz
"Kenny Lee Smith" <kl...@premiernet.net> wrote:
>Fair dice play would be just like real life. Players that aren't very good
>would continue to lose and quit the service...or never sign up in the
>first place. Good players would continually win and eventually get
>bored.
You still need to show that less than random dice materially favour
the bad player. Provided neither player was aware of the nature of the
bias, they are still equal in luck, and given that they have to make a
decision based on best estimates of what is coming, skill will still
out.
Two wrongs dont make a right, but two Wrights do make an aeroplane.
(and three rights make a left)
Kenny Lee Smith
Anthony Patz <a...@aztec.co.za> wrote in article
<6e3fi9$7ec$1...@news01.iafrica.com>...
>
> You still need to show that less than random dice materially favour
> the bad player. Provided neither player was aware of the nature of the
> bias, they are still equal in luck, and given that they have to make a
> decision based on best estimates of what is coming, skill will still
> out.
The assumption is that the services both have a bias to affect the
outcome of a match. That is, to create a more even amount of
winners and losers than would occur in real life.
In other words, their programs are specifically biased, not randomly
biased. Specifically biased to increase playing time, increase
memberships, increase income.
jerry schonewille
In article <35051ff7...@news.businessnet.dk>, rac...@cityraccoon.com wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 15:07:20 GMT, jgr...@nowhere.com (Onionhead) wrote
>about his experience with winning and losing streaks on Netgammon:
>
>>I have no facts, just observations, so that's all I can present.
>
>Fair enough. If you want to speculate about a server's dice, I don't
>think that's at all useful without facts. But we can talk usefully
>about observations -- if we can keep in mind what is and what is not a
>fact.
>
>>Like I said in my original post, don't ask me how or why this is
>>happening. I don't have an answer for either. The only thing I KNOW is
>>that ever since Netgammon started I have had MANY and almost CONSTANT
>>huge winning and losing streaks. That's what I KNOW.
>
I still say this debate can be settled once and for all if Netgammon would
simply publish the code for their dice rolling algorithm in this newsgroup and
let people knowledgable in software programming and/or statistics examine it.
Seems like a win-win to me. I've made this suggestion to Negammon, they have
chosen not to take my suggestion. And so the debate continues ....
best regards,
Jerry Schonewille
jerry at polymore dot com
San Jose California
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On 09-maa-98 21:00:35, Tom Vavasour wrote:
TV> I'm sure all you guys believe in project 51 and think the X- files s a
TV> documentary. The reason most of you think the dice are rigged is the
TV> same reason people go to clairvoyants and astrologers
And you *are* a clairvoyant and just "see" that those dice are fair?
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan
FERRANTE
(snip)
>Seems like a win-win to me. I've made this suggestion to Negammon, they have
>chosen not to take my suggestion. And so the debate continues ....
>
>best regards,
>
> Jerry Schonewille
> jerry at polymore dot com
> San Jose California
I made a suggestion that a button be placed next to the board which
would allow someone to view the pip count/ELO without having to hold
down the crtl and "E" keys. That to me is distracting. Or better yet,
have the pip count visible somewhere on the board, you know, like the
banners are at the bottom where they advertise (animated)...
They have not even acknowledged my suggestion. Funny thing is, prior
to my paying, they would write me back, now that they have my
money--they don't.
Mark Ferrante
Chuck Bower
In article <6e4qjd$154$1...@usenet48.supernews.com>,
jerry schonewille <jerry@not_really_my_domain.com> wrote:
(snip)
>I still say this debate can be settled once and for all if Netgammon would
>simply publish the code for their dice rolling algorithm in this newsgroup and
>let people knowledgable in software programming and/or statistics examine it.
>
>Seems like a win-win to me. I've made this suggestion to Negammon, they have
>chosen not to take my suggestion. And so the debate continues ....
Hmmm. Let me see if I understand this logic. Netgammon, who is
rumored to have experienced a problem because someone cracked the random
number generator, should publish the replacement for all interested parties.
OK. Let's forget that. I'm not "knowledgable in software programming"
so there is likely some detail that I'm missing. LET'S ASSUME THAT NETGAMMON
DOES THIS AND THAT SAID KNOWLEDGABLE PEOPLE BLESS IT AS BEING FAIR AND PROPER.
The assumption is that the doubters will then be satisfied that they
were mistaken, and go back to playing on this server, content in the fact
that either a) they were on some kind of run of bad dice, or b) they were
botching their winning chances with less than optimal play.
Egoes are laid aside. Logic prevails. And we all live happily ever
after....
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS