EPTWTF!!! Random isn't random - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
littlechava
United States7218 Posts
| ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On December 25 2004 13:10 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Its 1/9 chance...both sides of it are randomized.. How do you figure? If you flip the coin again you'll have an equal chance of it hitting Heads or Tails, it won't be 1/8 in favor of either side. | ||
|
paper
13196 Posts
On December 25 2004 13:05 Excalibur_Z wrote: No it's still a 1/3 chance =) Again I'll use coin-flipping as an example. If you get Heads 3 times in a row, the chances of that happening aren't 1/8, they're still 1/2. uhh. no. getting heads three times in a row is .5 x .5 x .5 = 0.125, or 12.5%, or 1/8 | ||
|
Orlandu
China2450 Posts
On December 25 2004 13:11 Excalibur_Z wrote: How do you figure? If you flip the coin again you'll have an equal chance of it hitting Heads or Tails, it won't be 1/8 in favor of either side. It's because it's sequential. Indivudally you would be right. But you have to group them as a whole, because sequentially means it's part of a bigger series of coin flips. | ||
|
EntiTy.
United States80 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On December 25 2004 13:20 Orlandu wrote: It's because it's sequential. Indivudally you would be right. But you have to group them as a whole, because sequentially means it's part of a bigger series of coin flips. Okay, but how is that indicative of the results of future flips? It wouldn't be scientifically sound to use the sequential flip results as evidence for how future flips will turn out, so isn't that information irrelevant? | ||
|
gg_hertzz
2152 Posts
On December 25 2004 13:24 Excalibur_Z wrote: Okay, but how is that indicative of the results of future flips? It wouldn't be scientifically sound to use the sequential flip results as evidence for how future flips will turn out, so isn't that information irrelevant? Wouldn't it? | ||
|
ShabZzoY!
Great Britain760 Posts
anyway, i have same problem as FA, when i get bored with toss i pick random and then get toss again :S | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
Not on such a small scale, no. If, on the other hand, you were collecting statistics, you could identify the actual randomness based on tens of thousands of flips. But if you got 3 Heads in a row, that's not enough to draw any type of concrete conclusion. | ||
|
SoL.Origin
Argentina2400 Posts
| ||
|
Orlandu
China2450 Posts
On December 25 2004 13:24 Excalibur_Z wrote: Okay, but how is that indicative of the results of future flips? It wouldn't be scientifically sound to use the sequential flip results as evidence for how future flips will turn out, so isn't that information irrelevant? It's not about the results you're getting. It's about the math behind it. In flipping one coin, there is a 1/2 chance of flipping a heads because there are only two possible outcomes, heads or tails. When flipping two coins and looking at them as a sequence, then there are two possiblities for the first one, which we covered. Assume you get heads. For the next flip, there are two possibilties: heads-heads, or heads-tails. Assume you get tails, two possibilities: tails-heads, tails-tails. So there are 4 possible outcomes of that sequence. There is only 1 outcome that is the result you want, heads-heads. So, 1 out of 4 gives you a 1/4 chance. Apply similar logic to a third round and you get 1/8 chance of getting heads 3 times in a row. | ||
|
gg_hertzz
2152 Posts
Isn't it all just a series If true then excute this Else excute this ? | ||
|
Danka
Peru1018 Posts
| ||
|
gg_hertzz
2152 Posts
On December 25 2004 13:37 Orlandu wrote: It's not about the results you're getting. It's about the math behind it. In flipping one coin, there is a 1/2 chance of flipping a heads because there are only two possible outcomes, heads or tails. When flipping two coins and looking at them as a sequence, then there are two possiblities for the first one, which we covered. Assume you get heads. For the next flip, there are two possibilties: heads-heads, or heads-tails. Assume you get tails, two possibilities: tails-heads, tails-tails. So there are 4 possible outcomes of that sequence. There is only 1 outcome that is the result you want, heads-heads. So, 1 out of 4 gives you a 1/4 chance. Apply similar logic to a third round and you get 1/8 chance of getting heads 3 times in a row. Yeah, what he said. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32274 Posts
On December 25 2004 13:36 SoL.Origin wrote: I learned a few days ago from playing race wars that when 8 ppl are in the game and all go random, its always 2 of a race, 3 of another, and 3 of the other one. You never get like 7 terran and 1 zerg for example. Yeah i noticed that too playing rw also. The oddest thing we got was a 5 player race war going 3t 1z & 1p | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On December 25 2004 13:37 Orlandu wrote: It's not about the results you're getting. It's about the math behind it. In flipping one coin, there is a 1/2 chance of flipping a heads because there are only two possible outcomes, heads or tails. When flipping two coins and looking at them as a sequence, then there are two possiblities for the first one, which we covered. Assume you get heads. For the next flip, there are two possibilties: heads-heads, or heads-tails. Assume you get tails, two possibilities: tails-heads, tails-tails. So there are 4 possible outcomes of that sequence. There is only 1 outcome that is the result you want, heads-heads. So, 1 out of 4 gives you a 1/4 chance. Apply similar logic to a third round and you get 1/8 chance of getting heads 3 times in a row. Okay, I understand that. What I don't understand is how you're applying sequential logic to individual games. Everyone has had their suspicions about BW's randomizer. Some say they get Terran 3 times in a row, some say Protoss 4/5 times, some say they've never got Zerg. So without larger sets (i.e., thousands of games) to draw from, how can any conclusion be reached about the randomizer and the math behind it? | ||
|
SChasu
United States1505 Posts
| ||
|
Nal_Testie
Canada1257 Posts
In 1on1's, it is indeed random. And is always random. The chance of a mirror matchup however in RvR is extremely rare and almost never happens. But, it occasionally does. In 2on2's, if all four players random. And you are z/z your opponents are t/p (automatically). If all four random and you and your ally get z/p, one of your opponents is T. And the other may be z/t/p. Likewise if you are t/t they are z/p. Etc.. etc... In games with 8 players, for race wars. All players can random without ever having to fear that you will have a team of five protosses, three terrans etc... It is always 3 of one race, 3 of another, and 2 of the other. Unless one person picks and fucks it all up. So in any game including 1on1, it is indeed random. There are days when you will random zerg almost for an entire day, random terran, or random toss. But they are rare instances. I didn't read any of the other posts. So if anyone else pointed this out, good job. If not, what a bunch of fucking morons. Happy Holidays.  | ||
|
Orlandu
China2450 Posts
On December 25 2004 13:48 Excalibur_Z wrote: Okay, I understand that. What I don't understand is how you're applying sequential logic to individual games. Everyone has had their suspicions about BW's randomizer. Some say they get Terran 3 times in a row, some say Protoss 4/5 times, some say they've never got Zerg. So without larger sets (i.e., thousands of games) to draw from, how can any conclusion be reached about the randomizer and the math behind it? Oh I wasn't saying anything about BW, I was just commenting on the coin logic. I guess I'd have to look into the whole BW-Random debate before I could make an opinion. EDIT: Personally I don't feel that it is truly "random", because from my experience with computers, as someone mentioned, true randomness isn't an option. Most likely Blizzard's algorithm is based off of a timer, so you could possibly have an algorithm where if you start the game very quickly right away each time, you might get the same race much more often because of the timer. That's IF the timer starts each time a game is created/or someone joins or whatever. There's lots of possiblities. I don't think any of them are truly random though, more dependent on some variable like the timer, and when you actually start the game would be my best guess. So I think I see what you're saying here, and the only comment I can really say is, I personally don't feel BW is truly random. EDIT2: But as far as our needs and concerns go, you could call it random =] | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On December 25 2004 13:52 Nal_Testie wrote: In 1on1's, it is indeed random. And is always random. The chance of a mirror matchup however in RvR is extremely rare and almost never happens. But, it occasionally does. So in any game except 1on1, it is indeed random. There are days when you will random zerg almost for an entire day, random terran, or random toss. But they are rare instances. I'm confused... | ||
| ||
