"a more balanced random rolling"

lolz.

without bad luck there would be no good luck, thanks for taking one for the team

Well HorizoN - without the extreme values for luck, it would be more of a strategy game and less of a lottery.

actually extreme values in luck does not increase or decrease the advantage of good stratigy, it increases the variance, not the expected value.

That would only be true if the assumption that strategy on the board does play an important roll was valid.

If there were only games with extreme values of luck, strategy would be dispensable. HEY, that's kdice...

Louis Cypher: "I did roll 8 with an 8stack once and heard of several others. Has anybody ever witnessed a 48? Seems quite unbalanced, doesn't it."

If the dice are perfectly random (all the numbers on a dice have equal chance and results of rolls are unrelated) probability of scoring 48 by rolling 8 dice is less than 1 in a 1.6 millions.

You played around 7000 games. If average number of rounds per game was 20 and you had two rolls per round, you had 280 thousands or quarter million rolls in your career.

One out of six players with your mileage probably won 48 so far. Yes, you were somewhat lucky with that, but I wouldn't call it unbalanced.

BTW, quarter million rolls so far, what a glorious waste of time. :o)

48 rolls more like 1 in 1.7 million but nvm

your 40 rolls per game could be more accurate too but nvm the order of magnitude is OK

BUT!!!!!: not all of his estimated quarter million rolls were 8v8, I would assume only 10% of that but that's also an order of magnitude.

jurgen: "48 rolls more like 1 in 1.7 million but nvm"

Well, 1 in 1,679,616. That's less than 1 in 1.6 million, but not less than 1 i 1.7 million.

jurgen: "your 40 rolls per game could be more accurate too but nvm the order of magnitude is OK"

You are right, I've overdone it. 20 rounds per game seems pretty ok, but one needs 14 connected lands to be able to roll twice each round.

jurgen: "BUT!!!!!: not all of his estimated quarter million rolls were 8v8, I would assume only 10% of that but that's also an order of magnitude."

Huh, I completely missed that. Another thing I missed is that not only his rolls should be counted, but all the rolls involving his 8-stack instead. All in all, I think Louis had three to four times less chances to win 48 in his career than I previously estimated.

Man, Carl Sagan looks way more convincing doing this kind of calculation (o: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlikCebQSlY

wawoo, jurgen - I am deeply impressed by your math-skills. However, I was never referring only to my limited amount of rolls. Sad enough that I did witness/experience rolling an 8 with my 8stack (I'm quite sure I did not experience this as being lucky). I can hardly expect to experience rolling a 48 as well (after all, they are equally unlikely). Nevertheless, somebody should have witnessed a 48. Several people have reported an 8. In none of the many games I played or watched with any account (let's discuss those 7000 again...) I did hear anybody mentioning that. I never read a post on that.

So my the simple questions was and still is, whether or not anybody can confirm a 48 ever happening. And all your stats will say (I won't do the math, I'm too lazy), with the huge number of rolls happening here and ideal dice, it should have happened.

wawoo,

"1,679,616. That's less than 1 in 1.6 million" yes I missread you, never have a problem in admitting when I make a mistake :-)

and yes, we could debate over good estimates of rounds/game and 8v8's per game and stuff, no need, it's the order of magnitude that's important

The main thing I wanted to point out was the BUT!!! part where you assumed all rolls to be 8v8's

And Louis, the 48 roll just might be like the certitude of other intelligent lifeforms out there in the universe: even the most pessimistic estimations calculate that there are at least 10 places in the universe where intelligent life exists... only we didn't find it yet