Two perfectly identical 5dice rolls at critical moments in the same game

[Sailor Vulcan]

So I just played against a Druid on OCTGN. During the game, I made two perfectly identical 5 dice attack rolls against the Vine Tree at critical moments: 4 blanks + 1 normal and a 6 on the effect die. I feel like this is astronomically unlikely to happen. While it is possible, I think the chances are probably higher for something going wrong with the program.

Here is the calculation of the probability:

(2/6)^8*(1/6)^2*(1/12)^2=

2.94011941 * 10^-8

In other words, the chances of this happening through pure chance is about 3 out of 100 million. While it is possible, I think it's more likely to be a bug. I think it's worth looking into.

[sIKE]

http://octgn.gamersjudgement.com/wordpress/magewars/2013/06/22/randomness-in-mage-wars/

[Sailor Vulcan]

Ok. That doesn't change the fact that the chances of these rolls were 3 out of 100 million and therefore probably lower than the chances of a bug in the program. I'm not denying that it's possible to happen from pure chance, but that's astronomically unlikely. I suppose you don't have to, but I still think this really warrants at least looking into. As far as I can see, the chances of this being a bug likely dwarf the chances of it happening purely by chance by a VERY large margin. I mean, 3 out of 100 million...I don't think it's something that can be successfully handwaved without even looking at it and confirming that it actually was pure chance.

"As soon as someone implements dice rolling in a computerized version of a game, someone else is bound to question the validity of the randomness of the rolls. "

I find the fact that you didn't say anything but post a link to this to be very dismissive and kind of insulting. If you had actually read my OP, you would know that I actually have EVIDENCE to justify questioning the reliability of the randomness of the rolls. That evidence being that the probability of the rolls in question are so astronomically slim that they are likely dwarfed by the chances of a bug. Unless you are claiming to know that the chances of there being a bug in the program are somehow lower than 3 out of 100 million...but honestly I think you'd have to have expensive state of the art equipment to be that confident.

And notice that I am questioning the reliability, rather than making claims about it. I have asked the question, and not only are you not giving a real answer, you're all but flat out ignoring me. That's just plain rude.

And for the record, the fact that the dice rolls are computerized have nothing to do with this. If this happened with real life dice, I would want to find out whether the dice were weighted.

[Zuberi]

I should probably just stay out of this, but I feel I must point out that that is not evidence of a bug. Showing something to be unlikely to happen does not show that something messed with the results. That's like a man saying his wife cheated because it is unlikely for his kid to be albino. No evidence what so ever for the accusation. The fact that the event is possible, but unlikely to occur, does not prove anything one way or another.

I think sIKE's response was very on point. You are questioning the results of the RNG so he pointed you to where the system was explained. I personally have doubts to the accurate distribution of his model as well, but I do not have evidence to call it into question. Just a general distrust of electronic RNGs. If you want to call it into question, you should collect more data than just two rolls.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Zuberi, you're confusing evidence and proof, and that invalidates your entire argument. This IS HUGE evidence of a bug. You do not need proof to have good reason to investigate something, you just need strong evidence. The proof one way or the other is what you get AFTER you've actually LOOKED.

[Zuberi]

I should not have used the word prove as I do understand the difference. It does not point one way or another. Is that better? How exactly do these two dice rolls which you admit could be produced by the system working as intended supply evidence that there is a bug? You need more data.

[silverclawgrizzly]

Friday night was at my local gaming guild on campus when two of my best friends were playing. I think it was Warlord VS Warlock. My Warlock buddy has a Ring of Fire on and decides to Fire Ball the Akiro Hammer. He literally gets 8 blanks! They're both stunned beyond belief and so am I. Then next turn it happened again......there is a world of difference between IMPROBABLE and IMPOSSIBLE.

I have no idea how to get the dice on an online game to favor you. But for my personal dice I like to routine purge those who under perform, and make the others watch as an object lesson.

[Sailor Vulcan]

You are not paying attention to what I'm actually saying. I explicitly said that it is not impossible. What I said is that the chances of such a thing happening out of pure randomness are so astronomically small that they are LAREGLY dwarfed by the chance of a bug in the program. You cannot assume this is just coincidence without actually checking to see if it is, since it is FAR more likely that it is not coincidence.

The chances of the rolls in your real life game are 0.000000023230573, or about 2 out of 100 million. While it's possible to happen through pure chance, it's WAY more likely to be due to lazy dice rolling.

Aylin, could you please help me out here? Thanks!

[silverclawgrizzly]

Imaginator you're right. I didn't mean to miss the point of your post. I apologize. To me it sound like you just had some rough luck, but then I don't play online so can't honestly discuss the likeliness of a bug in the system.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Well, I kind of doubt that likeliness is less than 3 out of 100 million.

Thank you.

[Zuberi]

You are saying it is statistically unlikely as your evidence, and I am saying you don't have the data to show that. Out of the many players on octgn for the many months it's been running, we probably have several million dice rolls accumulated and you are the only one to mention this occurrence. Assuming the system is working as intended, it had to happen to someone.

You are asking sike to put in quite a bit of work without showing any reason why he should. Remember he is doing this voluntarily in his free time. There's nothing wrong with asking, but don't get upset when he gives a legitimate response.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Zuberi, first of all I wasn't demanding him to do anything. I even explicitly said as much in the OP. But what he did do was very dismissive. It would have been far kinder for him to give a plausible explanation like the one you just gave, or even say something like "I appreciate your concern, but I must respectfully decline from commenting now since I'm busy."

Instead he did the equivalent of telling me to "talk to the hand".

[silverclawgrizzly]

My friends perhaps we should table this for a bit? We shall solve no problems with this current thread and merely creature hard feelings I believe.

[Zuberi]

Fair enough. His response was kind of cookie cutter. I doubt he meant it to be unkind but I can understand it leaving you with a bad taste. At this point I have said far more than I intended in a thread I don't really have business in, so I shall step aside. I am sorry to hear about your misfortune, whatever the cause may have been.

[Sailor Vulcan]

@silverclaw Nah. Zuberi's already proved me wrong about the chances of a bug with the reasonable argument he made in his last post. I'm just upset that most of the responses I've gotten in this thread  up to this point were so dismissive without really backing up what they were saying. Considering that all it took was for someone to say "there have already been millions of dice rolls" for me to realize that my concerns about the randomness of the dice are baseless, then I don't see why or how this had become a conflict.