| |
BGonline.org Forums
random vs. non-random rolls
Posted By: Colin Owen In Response To: random vs. non-random rolls (Chuck Bower)
Date: Friday, 15 March 2013, at 6:28 p.m.
I'm glad you've brought this post to the forefront. I think it's sentiment undelies a lot of players (bad) habits.
Whether an event is random or not is relative to the observer. A sophisticated team of cheats, using a computer to time a roulette ball may know that the ball is more likely to descend into a certain quadrant of the wheel. To them it is not a random result. To other players however, it is random. But whether the ball will fall in red or black IS random to the cheating team, as it is beyond the scope of the calculations to be so specific, particularly with the prescence of the diamond studded deflectors that likely contact the ball as it descends.
Many players (and probably even some directors) feel that a lipped dice cup effectively guarantees randomness, ie that a failure to follow the rules on random rolls (shaking/rolling etc) actually has no real significance to the outcome: a random roll results, they believe. These players may be less motivated to follow the rules on random rolling.
Personally, I feel that though, on a conscious level, we may have no idea how our irregular cast of the dice affects the odds, that doesn't mean that our unconscious has no clue about this. I was long ago convinced of the power of the subconscious - if we happen to tune into it! As an example, if we are walking through our home with a screwed up piece of paper in our hand, an apple core etc and - without conscious thought - suddenly throw it at a bin it flies straight in there. If instead we had stopped, carefully aiming, we would most probably miss, and by some margin.
We are all capable of Zen-like moments and - if we don't shake, shake weakly, drop the dice from just above the board or whatever - we may unconsciously be well aware of how our actions change the odds, consequently affecting the roll in our favour. This involved no deliberate effort, and might seem innocent. What is clear in this instance is that, by acting in an irregular way, we were not innocent.
Whether or not we did consciously or unconsciously affect the outcome - most importantly - our opponent may not have such confidence. He may doubt that the player who didn't shake, looked in the cup, barely rolled or whatever didn't affect the odds in his favour.
Like Sean, I basically agree with Stein's statement. But the most significant word in it is "IF the thrower has no way of knowing or controlling..." Consequently, the statement is rather academic.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.