Gamescience dice are very much worth it.

Hobo said:

That's a lot of crying. Well, maybe not.

Click to expand...

Ha- good catch! Corrected it.

Ive seen a d20 roll 20 five... five times in a row. Five. That's 1/20*1/20*1/20*1/20*1/20 , or 1/(20^5) or 3.125x10^-7, That's such a rediculously small chance that the die HAD to be bias. It doesnt matter if you DIDNT roll a certain number, it matters if a number occurs more often than others, especially if they occur consecutively. I have seen similar things happen with other die quite often, perhaps not 5 times but certainly 3 or 4 times in a row and these are dice from the chessex pound o' dice. In my experience 6s 10s and 20s are the worst. I'm fairly good with statistics as my job description requires it, I can confidently say that there are very biased tumbled dice. When this happens I give the offending player a GS die and they roll it and it shuts down these problems really fast.

Evenglare said:

Ive seen a d20 roll 20 five... five times in a row. Five. That's 1/20*1/20*1/20*1/20*1/20 , or 1/(20^5) or 3.125x10^-7, That's such a rediculously small chance that the die HAD to be bias. It doesnt matter if you DIDNT roll a certain number, it matters if a number occurs more often than others, especially if they occur consecutively. I have seen similar things happen with other die quite often, perhaps not 5 times but certainly 3 or 4 times in a row and these are dice from the chessex pound o' dice. In my experience 6s 10s and 20s are the worst. I'm fairly good with statistics as my job description requires it, I can confidently say that there are very biased tumbled dice. When this happens I give the offending player a GS die and they roll it and it shuts down these problems really fast.

Click to expand...

People win the lottery every week.

Just becuase it is a small chance does not mean it does not happen.

And you said you saw it once. How many tiems did you not see it?

Now, I will agree that there are probalby some dice out there, due to bubbles inside, or other imperfections, are just plain biased. But I think the odds of that are pretty low also, for all dice, tumbled or not.

Did anyone else notice how cruddy msot of the dice in the examples on the video were? I did not see anything that looked like a modern dice.

It doesn't matter how many times I DIDN'T see 20's what matters is how many times 20's popped up , especially consecutive 20's Id get them rolling 2 20's in a row at least 5 times a 3 hour session. This is way to frequent. I believe 20's are the worse simply because there are more sides and each side is smaller compared to other die.The angle between the sides are also relatively shallow (compared to any other die) thus if one side gets more tumbling than other sides then it will not STOP the die roll as it should. Unlike GS dice which are directly out of the mold and have sharp edges which provide more surface area as well as an even amount of surface area which provides a larger barrier for inertia of the die.

... how are people arguing this ? It's physics. Break out some geometry, and some elementary physics and you can see clearly the bias in dice . The more the tumbling the worse the die is going to have bias. Think about if you tumbled a d20 into what you believe is a sphere (by your naked eye). If you were to roll that sphere the imperfections would invariable make a certain side of that sphere point up , every single time.

Well, I have said what I needed, and backed up my claims with math and physics. There is nothing else I can possibly do to convince some of you I guess. Thanks for your time.

Evenglare said:

... how are people arguing this ? It's physics. Break out some geometry, and some elementary physics and you can see clearly the bias in dice.

<snip>

Well, I have said what I needed, and backed up my claims with math and physics. There is nothing else I can possibly do to convince some of you I guess. Thanks for your time.

Click to expand...

You might think you have backed up your claims, but you are still using your own "observation bias" as the determinant for what should be an unbiased statistical measurement.

What most people "arguing this" are saying is that the actual bias between a tumbled die and a GS die is, in all probability, "statistically" insignificant. For the purpose of a roleplaying game it is even more so. The stakes riding on that "statistical" insignificance are even more "insignificant".




-

Evenglare said:

I'm fairly good with statistics as my job description requires it, I can confidently say that there are very biased tumbled dice. When this happens I give the offending player a GS die and they roll it and it shuts down these problems really fast.

Click to expand...

You haven't yet demonstrated any statistical acumen if you think that one observation of a dice that rolled 20 five times in a row is proof of statistical bias.

Dice4Hire said:

Now, I will agree that there are probalby some dice out there, due to bubbles inside, or other imperfections, are just plain biased. But I think the odds of that are pretty low also, for all dice, tumbled or not.

Click to expand...

Bubbles are internal anyway; tumbling or not won't have any impact on dice with bubbles.

Evenglare said:

... how are people arguing this ? It's physics. Break out some geometry, and some elementary physics and you can see clearly the bias in dice . The more the tumbling the worse the die is going to have bias. Think about if you tumbled a d20 into what you believe is a sphere (by your naked eye). If you were to roll that sphere the imperfections would invariable make a certain side of that sphere point up , every single time.

Click to expand...

You're not wrong about the impact of physics and geometry, you're wrong in that you've created a strawman where the significance of geometry and physics is absurdly exaggerated. Surely you can see the difference?

Evenglare said:

Well, I have said what I needed, and backed up my claims with math and physics. There is nothing else I can possibly do to convince some of you I guess. Thanks for your time.

Click to expand...

Actually, you haven't backed up your claims with much of anything at all. But surely, as a professional statistician, you already understand that.

Evenglare said:

... how are people arguing this ? It's physics. Break out some geometry, and some elementary physics and you can see clearly the bias in dice .

Click to expand...

No, what geometry reveals is a small asymmetry in the die. Small enough that it isn't really visible on casual observation. Whether that results in noticeably biased results in typical use is a separate question. Basic physics suggests the results might be biased. But real basic physics also teaches you that empirical data trumps assertion.

Well, I have said what I needed, and backed up my claims with math and physics.

Click to expand...

You've invoked the name of math and physics, but not actually used them.

Only Miss Sakamoto can blind me with science...

Bubbles are internal anyway; tumbling or not won't have any impact on dice with bubbles.

Click to expand...

Actually, bubbles & tumbling both affect randomness, just in different ways. Tumbling can alter the uniformity of the faces of the die. Internal bubbles- and anything else that breaks up the uniformity of the density of the die- throws off the center of gravity.

Right. My point was that bubbles are a completely SEPARATE issue from tumbling, and tumbling the dice (or not) won't change the bias inherent because of bubbles.

There's no way to settle this argument, you are claiming all dice tubled are non biased. All I have to do is find ONE die that is biased and I win, but then I wont win becuase you can claim that most arent. I cant possibly refute that because I don't have all the die in the world to test. The only thing I CAN say is that there are many dice that are biased and I HAVE come across them. I understand anecdotes aren't evidence, but it still doesnt change the fact that I have run across MANY dice that have consecutively rolled numbers which has provided hardships in my game. So when I give them GS die that problem some how magically goes away. I COULD spend hundreds of hours rolling and testing each and every die that I came across but it would be foolish as this is a social board and I dont have nearly that much time.

Another thing :rolls eyes: is very very childish, and I would expect more from a 30+ year old assuming your profile is accurate. Also Hobo if you would please read more carefully I never - ever - claimed I was a statistician, I said that my job requires me to know a good amount of statistics. I am an astrophysicist. I have several publications on the matter of asteroids, occultation and am working on a thesis about exoplanets. I must know about randomized data , and different statistical figures to normalize and skew data depending on which CCD cameras are used and what different band filters are used.

If you would like to check my claims' here are my publications. Thanks for your time.
• "Observations of Minor Planet K08W32S"
November 25, 2008, Minor Planet Electronic Circular 2008-W67.
• "Observations of Minor Planet K08UR6W"
December 6, 2008, Minor Planet Electronic Circular 2008-X48.
• "Observations of Minor Planet K08UK0U"
December 6, 2008, Minor Planet Electronic Circular 2008-X48.
• "Observations of Minor Planet K01W71C"
December 6, 2008, Minor Planet Electronic Circular 2008-X48.
• "Observations of Minor Planets 3498, 4462 and 29614"
December 2008, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars
• "Occultations of TYC5234-01020-1 by Minor Planet 43 Ariadne
on September 20, 2008", December 2008International Occultation Timing Association

If you would like a link to my thesis and dissertation over exoplanets I'll be happy to provide it. I'm about 90% done. It really is insulting to have your intelligence questioned when I have been working in science and math for 8+ years.