Forum
Why does everyone lose to smaller stacks recently?
|
Fishermang wrote
at 4:31 AM, Wednesday August 22, 2007 EDT
I mean 6 losing against 4, 5 against 3, etc. This happens much more frequently than half a week ago. I lost nearly 200 points the other day because of this. The "rules" changed? It seems to me the game has become more chance based, which makes strategy a little bit less useful, and hence the game becomes more boring. Or has nothing changed, and I am imagining things? :S
|
|
Agent Zer0 wrote
at 5:33 AM, Wednesday August 22, 2007 EDT Since you brought this up...
Agent Zer0's turn JAY JAY 67 defeated 2v2: 9 to 4 (3,6 to 1,3) Pubic Dice defeated 8v1: 33 to 2 (6,4,5,3,6,2,6,1 to 2) Dovke defended 7v2: 10 to 10 (1,1,1,3,1,2,1 to 4,6) Dovke defended 2v2: 6 to 10 (5,1 to 6,4) |
|
Jans wrote
at 5:52 AM, Thursday August 23, 2007 EDT I saw a guy lose a 2v1 the other day, with the most embarrassing numbers: 1,1 to 2 :D
And i saw a guy with an 8 stack throw 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2. Obviously, he lost ^^ Seriously though, what are the odds of throwing only 9 points with 8 dice?? |
|
TDD wrote
at 10:26 AM, Thursday August 23, 2007 EDT "become more chance based"?
It is a game of dice. Everything with dice is chance. When you are the higher stack it is not an automatic win, it's a higher probability win. Look at this guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kdice#Dice_Roll_Probabilities A 2v1 is 83.8% to win. That means that 1 in 5 times 2 will lose, on average. Even an 8v2 can lose - 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 vs. 4,5. Probability is low, but it's up to chance. |
|
Ridin wrote
at 7:47 PM, Thursday August 23, 2007 EDT Yeap, lost a nasty one today. It happens though, all in the odds.
Ridin's turn King Jason defended 7v2: 8 to 9 (2,1,1,1,1,1,1 to 4,5) |
|
fiero600 wrote
at 4:02 AM, Friday August 24, 2007 EDT saw this today...
Tetris Cube's turn Sport69 defeated 8v8: 48 to 11 (6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6 to 1,1,2,1,1,1,3,1) whats the chances lol |
|
Klinky wrote
at 6:19 PM, Friday August 24, 2007 EDT I think it'd be great if on ties both stacks get knocked down to 1 die, this would lend more to strategy, as more strategy occurs when there are less double stacks on the board. Also it removes the defenders advantage.
|
|
ChelseaSucks wrote
at 8:06 PM, Friday August 24, 2007 EDT There it is the first confirmed 48 Ive ever seen
|
|
*Brubaker* wrote
at 11:30 PM, Friday August 24, 2007 EDT That is the first 48 I've heard of too. When things go bad, you get a feel for it. It seems that you are losing to smaller stacks because you're looking for it. It'll pass.
Take two of these and call me a bastard after I wont truce with you. ;) Bru |
|
XCRobin wrote
at 12:55 AM, Saturday August 25, 2007 EDT I can make up numbers too:
XCRobin's turn: Wayne Rooney defeated 8v8: 49 to 7 (6,6,6,6,6,6,7,6 to 1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1) Wayne Rooney finishes 7th. Rank: 259th Rating: -16 2741. (-8 for 7th and -8 for dominance) Wayne Rooney stands up |
|
Joffrey wrote
at 3:30 AM, Saturday August 25, 2007 EDT there used to be a post of a 48 with a screen shot in the forum a few months ago ... some idiots tried to claim it was no more statistically interesting than rolling any other random sequence of 8 numbers like 1,4,6,2,3,5,5,2
|
