The only people who say that backgammon sites are not rigged are employees of 247, BG and VIP. It is soooo obvious. Can almost predict the next throw by the computer.Would you bet on that under controlled conditions? Say you win if you predict 5 out of 10 and loose otherwise?
I can be 25 pips ahead and almost ready to begin bearing off, and the opponent will suddenly roll a double 6 for "catch up".O.k. that convices me. I never heard that happened in real life.
glen moulder schrieb am 18. August 2023 um 21:20:48 UTC+2:
Can almost predict the next throw by the computer.
Would you bet on that under controlled conditions?
win if you predict 5 out of 10 and loose otherwise?
I can be 25 pips ahead and almost ready to begin
bearing off, and the opponent will suddenly roll a
double 6 for "catch up".
O.k. that convices me. I never heard that happened
in real life.
On August 18, 2023 at 3:01:11 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
glen moulder schrieb am 18. August 2023 um 21:20:48 UTC+2:
Can almost predict the next throw by the computer.
Would you bet on that under controlled conditions?What kind of stupid bet is this..?
win if you predict 5 out of 10 and loose otherwise?
A better bet on predicting rolls would be whether
a specific roll will happen or not, i.e. "yes or no",
with the amount won or lost being based on the
actual odds of that roll happening.
For example, if he predicts that the next roll will be
61 (or 16) and bets $1 on it, he should win $17 if it
happens and lose $1 if it doesn't happen. Or on the
opposite, if he predicts that the next roll will not be
61 (and 16) and bets $1 on it, he should only win $1
if it happens and lose $17 if it doesn't happen.
Similarly, for predicting a double the odds should be
1 to 35; for predicting only one number odds should
be 1 to 5; etc.
In fact compound bets can be made, such as "I will
not roll a 5 or 6, (i.e. to escape a blot), and then my
opponent will roll a 2 or double 1's, (to hit me)", etc.
and the amounts won or lost will be based on the
actual compounded odds.
If you offer this to me under controlled conditions,
let's say against the "rigged" Gnu-Dung ;), I'll take it.
I can be 25 pips ahead and almost ready to begin
bearing off, and the opponent will suddenly roll a
double 6 for "catch up".
O.k. that convices me. I never heard that happenedYou keep making this "never in real life" comment all
in real life.
the time, even when people don't necessarily imply it,
in order to score points against your own strawman
that you create by exaggerating.
A better argument would be "how often" in "real life"
vs on "online servers" or "bots".
You guys seem to have amassed huge amounts of
games of each kind to be able to look at them and
find the answers for all kinds of similar questions,
such as "how often does a human vs a bot rolls an
anti-joker immediately after a cube action", etc. but
instead of doing the work to put an end to it, you all
prefer to just blabber nonsense about it forever... :(
MK
glen moulder schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 21:20:48 UTC+2:
The only people who say that backgammon sites are not rigged are employees of 247, BG and VIP. It is soooo obvious. Can almost predict the next throw by the computer.Would you bet on that under controlled conditions? Say you win if you predict 5 out of 10 and loose otherwise?
I can be 25 pips ahead and almost ready to begin bearing off, and the opponent will suddenly roll a double 6 for "catch up".O.k. that convices me. I never heard that happened in real life.
But it is you own fault. Do the same that your opponent did to get the good rolls (because that is the funny thing with BG, your bad roll is his good roll).
So, for the (real) app in question, it has a nasty habit of rolling lots of 6-5s in the end race where the user gets a lot of 2-1, 3-1, 1-1, 3-2 rolls.could you provide some data that can be analyzed, e.g. the bots average in running games is 8.7 compared to 7.2 in 473 rolls? Even better if you have recorded all rolls. Than one could do e.g. a phi-square test and get some data to talk about. Nasty
If you can prove definitively that your app isn't cheating, why wouldn't you?Maybe he's simply p.o.d. of the complains. Maybe the app cheats (if the AI is abysmal that might be a last resort). Would be easier if there are some recorded matches.
I genuinely wonder what your view is of a developer
of a backgammon app who is challenged (and refuses
to acquiesce) to (a) display the RNG seed in use for
any given game
and (b) give the user the option of playing a new game
using that seed.
Just a few remarks.
1. I do believe MK makes some reasonable
points, but the argument is very well-worn.
2. I do believe the dice are random.
For open-source code, this can be checked.
Random-number generation is very well-known,
and I don't see any motivation to introduce non-
random dice,
and I don't see any evidence of non-randomness.
3. The "never in real life" comment was sarcastic,
as I read it.
Tony The Welsh Twat schrieb am 19. August 2023 um 18:06:57 UTC+2:
If you can prove definitively that your
app isn't cheating, why wouldn't you?
Maybe .....
On August 19, 2023 at 10:06:57 AM UTC-6, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
I genuinely wonder what your view is of a developer
of a backgammon app who is challenged (and refuses
to acquiesce) to (a) display the RNG seed in use for
any given game
This is a valid argument that has been made many
times over the years. Servers should use separate
instances of RNG's for users and disclose the seed
that was used for each game after it's completed.
The same applies to bots like Ex-Gee.
and (b) give the user the option of playing a new game
using that seed.
I don't see how would this help anything..? People
may be able to remember some recent sequences
of dice rolls and play differently the second time
around, which would amount to cheating...
I don't see how would this help anything..? People
may be able to remember some recent sequences
of dice rolls and play differently the second time
around, which would amount to cheating...
MK
3 - Getting dice from an external DLLjust nitpicking: it's Groovy source code, no dll
(although I'm not sure how the "counter" works).I was bored by complains that "the bot is always getting more doubles" and the like. The counter simply skips the first N numbers, i.e. if the counter is 1 the first roll is skipped and you get the dice of the computer and vice verse. Not that have
The only people who say that backgammon sites are not rigged are employees of 247, BG and VIP. It is soooo obvious. Can almost predict the next throw by the computer. I can be 25 pips ahead and almost ready to begin bearing off, and the opponent willsuddenly roll a double 6 for "catch up". I can have my opponent on the bar with only one opening and way to hit me, and think, " the only way out is for the roll to be a 6 - 1" and that's what happens. Wish I could stop being seduced into playing. Wish,
On 8/19/2023 8:43 PM, MK wrote:
On August 19, 2023 at 10:06:57 AM UTC-6, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
display the RNG seed in use for any given game
This is a valid argument that has been made many
times over the years. Servers should use separate
instances of RNG's for users and disclose the seed
that was used for each game after it's completed.
The same applies to bots like Ex-Gee.
it still wouldn't prevent someone from claiming
that the seed was calculated after the fact in
order to retrofit the dishonest sequence.
give the user the option of playing a new game
using that seed.
I don't see how would this help anything..? People
may be able to remember some recent sequences
of dice rolls and play differently the second time
around, which would amount to cheating...
If this is a concern, then many of the commonly
used RNGs (e.g., Mersenne Twister) would no
longer be suitable, because the seed could be
deduced after some number of rolls,
On 20 August 2023 at 01:43:28 UTC+1, MK wrote:
I don't see how would this help anything..?
By noting the dice generated by a given seed and
then replaying the second game differently, those
injections would occur at different times
MK schrieb am 20. August 2023 um 04:15:44 UTC+2:
3 - Getting dice from an external DLL
just nitpicking: it's Groovy source code, no dll
(although I'm not sure how the "counter" works).
The counter simply skips the first N numbers,
I further have implemented a live preview for the
dice for the user recently
In fact complains have decreased since then, but
I have no idea whether there is a correlation
On 8/18/2023 3:20 PM, glen moulder wrote:
The only people who say that backgammon
sites are not rigged are employees of 247...
Fortunately, we have a solution in the Official
Complaint Form, which I encourage you to
download, fill out, and post the completed
form here.
We have operators standing by to diagnose
and address your problem.
HTH. HAND.
On August 20, 2023 at 6:58:30 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
If this is a concern, then many of the commonly
used RNGs (e.g., Mersenne Twister) would no
longer be suitable, because the seed could be
deduced after some number of rolls,
Has this been ever tried to find out approximately
in how few rolls could it be done? If not, do you or
anyone here has an educated guess?
On 8/20/2023 10:14 PM, MK wrote:
Has this been ever tried to find out approximately
in how few rolls could it be done? If not, do you or
anyone here has an educated guess?
This is easy to estimate.
Let's say the seed is 32 bits. That means that
there are 2^32 possible seeds.
There are 21 possible rolls. They're not all equally
likely, but we're just trying to estimate, so let's
ignore that nuance. Now
21^7 < 2^32 < 21^8
So you should be able to infer a 32-bit seed after
8 rolls.
What do you say to that, "Moses"...??? :)))
..... The Mersenne Twister algorithm becomes
predictable after a while, but this loophole can
again be plugged if we simply agree to refresh
the seed after a certain period of time. We'd
have to check the details of the generator to be
certain, but the number of dice rolls in a 31-point
match is probably small enough that refreshing
the seed after each match is good enough.
Wikipedia says that 624 observations of MY19937
is enough to recover the seed, but I think this
assumes that you see the full 32-bit word each
time, so it probably translates into more than 624
dice rolls.
On 8/23/2023 6:08 PM, MK wrote:
I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
I doubt that you'd be convinced by anything short of working code,
and I'm not going to produce working code, because someone might
actually use it to cheat.
I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
..... The Mersenne Twister algorithm becomes
predictable after a while, but this loophole can
again be plugged if we simply agree to refresh
the seed after a certain period of time. We'd
have to check the details of the generator to be
certain, but the number of dice rolls in a 31-point
match is probably small enough that refreshing
the seed after each match is good enough.
Wikipedia says that 624 observations of MY19937
is enough to recover the seed, but I think this
assumes that you see the full 32-bit word each
time, so it probably translates into more than 624
dice rolls.
About your last sentence above, I think Ex-Gee and
Noo-BGt derive dice numbers simply from modulo
6 of those 624 numbers in the array. So, one would
need to know all 624, (i.e. at least 312 dice pairs),
in order to know the following roll in line.
Can you stand behind either of these contradicting
statements..?
I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
Obtain 8 rolls. Then try all 2^32 possible
32-bit seeds to see if you can match the
given rolls. Unless you're very unlucky,
only one of the 32-bit seeds will give you
a match.
On 8/23/2023 6:08 PM, MK wrote:
I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
I doubt that you'd be convinced by anything
short of working code,
I'm not going to produce working code, because
someone might actually use it to cheat.
If you're too lazy to learn the math,
or prefer to sting like a scorpion because
that's your nature, then that's your problem.
The Mersenne Twister algorithm becomes
predictable after a while, but this loophole
can again be plugged if we simply agree to
refresh the seed after a certain period of time.
We'd have to check the details of the generator
to be certain, but the number of dice rolls in a
31-point match is probably small enough that
refreshing the seed after each match is good
enough.
Wikipedia says that 624 observations of
MY19937 is enough to recover the seed, but I
think this assumes that you see the full 32-bit
word each time, so it probably translates into
more than 624 dice rolls.
Here I was assuming that the full 19937 bits of
the seed were being used, not just 32 bits of it.
About your last sentence above, I think Ex-Gee
and Noo-BGt derive dice numbers simply from
modulo 6 of those 624 numbers in the array.
So, one would need to know all 624, (i.e. at least
312 dice pairs), in order to know the following
roll in line.
Again, this would only be if the full seed were
being used.
There is no contradiction.
On 2023-08-23, MK <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
In GNUbg the seed for Mersenne twister is
not limited to 32 bits. The way to set it from
the GUI had a bug but this was fixed in 2019
after a vigilant user reported the problem:
"Allow RNG seeds up to 2^53 in the GUI (when
built with libgmp) instead of truncating them
at 2^32. This prevents an issue reported by
Murat in rec.games.backgammon when using a
timestamp in yyyymmddHHMM format as seed."
2^53 shoud be more than enough to make the
brute-force sifting described by Tim in another
post impossible *if* the seed is really not
guessable.
In fact, Snowie'sI think it's 31-Bit if one can't enter a sign
was signed 32-bit, so you really had 16-bits,
MK schrieb am 25. August 2023 um 10:26:36 UTC+2:
In fact, Snowie's
was signed 32-bit, so you really had 16-bits,
I think it's 31-Bit if one can't enter a sign
2- Do you accept that you were underestimating the
dice rolls needed to deduce a 32 bit seed? (If not, I'd
like you to demonstrate that your math is correct for
me to learn the math correctly).
On August 24, 2023 at 6:24:04 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
Obtain 8 rolls. Then try all 2^32 possible
32-bit seeds to see if you can match the
given rolls. Unless you're very unlucky,
only one of the 32-bit seeds will give you
a match.
And how many 32-bit seeds will give me
a match, if I'm indeed very unlucky..." :)
On 8/20/2023 10:14 PM, MK wrote:
On August 20, 2023 at 6:58:30 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
If this is a concern, then many of the commonly
used RNGs (e.g., Mersenne Twister) would no
longer be suitable, because the seed could be
deduced after some number of rolls,
Has this been ever tried to find out approximatelyThis is easy to estimate.
in how few rolls could it be done? If not, do you or
anyone here has an educated guess?
Let's say the seed is 32 bits. That means that there are 2^32
possible seeds.
There are 21 possible rolls. They're not all equally likely, but
we're just trying to estimate, so let's ignore that nuance. Now
21^7 < 2^32 < 21^8
So you should be able to infer a 32-bit seed after 8 rolls.
Now, if you were able to use the full 19937 bits available for the
Mersenne Twister, then this same calculation would say that you
would need over 4500 rolls to determine the seed. That sounds good,
until you realize that it also means that you could retrofit over
4500 rolls with such a large seed.
---
Tim Chow
So the app I have a beef with uses something called a standard Linear Congruential Generator (LCG) RNG algorithm to generate dice rolls.
I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly from a very winning position.
Could I search (somehow) that LCG to see if any of the seeds used ever rolled that sequence of dice?
bragging is no programming language
MK schrieb am 25. August 2023 um 12:08:34 UTC+2:
it's a waste of time to argue with someone
who doesn't care about the matter at hand,
but only about somehow being right in the
end in his twisted logic.
Frank Berger <bgbl...@googlemail.com> writes:
bragging is no programming language
But Brainfuck is.
On 8/25/2023 3:56 AM, MK wrote:
2- Do you accept that you were underestimating
the dice rolls needed to deduce a 32 bit seed? (If
not, I'd like you to demonstrate that your math is
correct for me to learn the math correctly).
I gave all the math already.
Just code up what I told you. Try all 2^32 seeds.
On 8/25/2023 4:08 AM, MK wrote:
On August 24, 2023 at 6:24:04 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
Obtain 8 rolls. Then try all 2^32 possible
32-bit seeds to see if you can match the
given rolls. Unless you're very unlucky,
only one of the 32-bit seeds will give you
a match.
And how many 32-bit seeds will give me
a match, if I'm indeed very unlucky..." :)
I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
this would ever happen.
But without analyzing the specific details of
how the program converts RNG output into
dice rolls,
I can't be sure that it would be impossible
to get more than one match after 8 rolls.
In any case, if you run into such a rare situation,
a 9th roll will disambiguate between them.
So the app I have a beef with uses something called a standard Linear Congruential Generator (LCG) RNG algorithm to generate dice rolls.
I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly from a very winning position.
Could I search (somehow) that LCG to see if any of the seeds used ever rolled that sequence of dice?
On August 25, 2023 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
this would ever happen.
Wait a minute, now. Are we doing math here
or playing guessing games..?
No big deal. I don't know how to code either.
On 8/25/2023 11:19 AM, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1
rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly
from a very winning position.
As Frank says, there are many different LCG
random number generators. And even if you
knew the specific one used by the app,
you'd also need to know how the app turns
the output of the random number generator
into a dice roll---there are several different
ways to do this.
The probability of 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls is
about 1 in 600 million,
So we'd expect about 7 different seeds to give
you 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls right off the bat.
And if there's some flexibility about when exactly
the sequence starts (one or two rolls earlier or
later, perhaps), then more seeds will fit the bill.
On 8/25/2023 7:50 PM, MK wrote:
No big deal. I don't know how to code either.
Glad to see that you're finally admitting that
all your past bragging about your computer
skills were blatant lies!
I had suspected as much, but since you can't
even code up a simple exhaust, that pretty
much proves that you're incompetent.
On 8/25/2023 8:05 PM, MK wrote:
On August 25, 2023 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
this would ever happen.
Wait a minute, now. Are we doing math here
or playing guessing games..?
I'm playing a guessing game, because like you,
I'm too lazy to actually analyze the code.
If you really want to know the answer, you can
figure it out yourself by running the code.
But what will you do about your math being wrong?
I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
slap you silly with it...
On August 26, 2023 at 7:13:08 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
you'd also need to know how the app turns
the output of the random number generator
into a dice roll---there are several different
ways to do this.
Which of those "several different ways" do you
assume is used in your argument below?
The probability of 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls is
about 1 in 600 million,
This is not applicable in this case.
So we'd expect about 7 different seeds to give
you 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls right off the bat.
By this you must mean starting at counter "1"(?)
And if there's some flexibility about when exactly
the sequence starts (one or two rolls earlier or
later, perhaps), then more seeds will fit the bill.
Earlier!? Earlier than what?
If we take 54 as the average number of rolls in a
game and take that the last of his 21's was also
one of the last rolls, his sequence would have to
start at around the 40th roll, i.e. counter "40". So,
now how many seeds you'd expect, being helped
with this additional info..?
But what is more important that this is the fact
that he is not the only player rolling the dice; his
opponent is also rolling. His seven 21's occur on
every other roll, i.e during 14 consecutive rolls.
On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:
But what will you do about your math being wrong?
I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
slap you silly with it...
There's no need to wait a few days. State your objections now.
Timothy Chow <tchow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:
But what will you do about your math being wrong?
I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
slap you silly with it...
There's no need to wait a few days. State your objections now.If you attempt to slap a mosquito on your cheek there are two
possible results, but both end up with you slapping yourself.
--bks
Timothy Chow <tchow12000@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:
But what will you do about your math being wrong?
I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
slap you silly with it...
There's no need to wait a few days. State your objections now.
If you attempt to slap a mosquito on your cheek there are two
possible results, but both end up with you slapping yourself.
On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:
But what will you do about your math being wrong?
I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
slap you silly with it...
There's no need to wait a few days. State your
objections now.
Timothy Chow <tchow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:
But what will you do about your math being wrong?
I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
slap you silly with it...
There's no need to wait a few days. State your
objections now.
If you attempt to slap a mosquito on your cheek
there are two possible results, but both end up
with you slapping yourself.
On 8/26/2023 4:04 PM, MK wrote:
On August 26, 2023 at 7:13:08 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
you'd also need to know how the app turns
the output of the random number generator
into a dice roll---there are several different
ways to do this.
Which of those "several different ways" do you
assume is used in your argument below?
For the argument I gave, it doesn't matter.
It's only if you wanted to prove definitively that
the particular app couldn't have generated the
rolls that you would need to pin down which
of these ways is used.
The probability of 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls is
about 1 in 600 million,
This is not applicable in this case.
It is, as I explain below.
So we'd expect about 7 different seeds to give
you 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls right off the bat.
By this you must mean starting at counter "1"(?)
I mean starting at a specified moment.
Earlier!? Earlier than what?
Earlier than the roll that the first 21 actually
occurred during the game. That is, suppose
that his 21 sequence happened from rolls 41
through 47. "Earlier" would mean, for example,
that the 21 sequence occurred from rolls 40
through 46.
If you insist that the sequence starts with the 40th
roll, then again we expect 7 out of 2^32 seeds.
..... "losing the game with a sequence of seven
consecutive rolls of 21" might have happened
in two different ways, either starting with such
a sequence at roll 40 or at roll 41. We can't say
for sure without knowing what the position was,
but I was just pointing out that the number of
seeds could be larger than 7 out of 2^32 if this
were the case.
But what is more important that this is the fact
that he is not the only player rolling the dice; his
opponent is also rolling. His seven 21's occur on
every other roll, i.e during 14 consecutive rolls.
Here we reach the main point of your complaint.
completely irrelevant. Since we don't care what
the opponent's rolls are, the calculation is exactly
the same. It's still an event with probability
approximately 1 in 600 million, so the number of
seeds is going to be the same.
On August 27, 2023 at 7:14:59 AM UTC-6, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
If you attempt to slap a mosquito on your cheek
there are two possible results, but both end up
with you slapping yourself.
While waiting for Frank to go fetch a fishing net,
there comes this butt sniffing mutt, with nothing
to say about the matter at hand but an irrelevant
comments to give moral support to his peer...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJF2cCMXPKk
On August 27, 2023 at 7:04:20 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:
But what will you do about your math being wrong?
I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
slap you silly with it...
There's no need to wait a few days. State your
objections now.
I'm being nice and proper to give not just you but
also your silent dogs, mathematician ilk of yours,
a fair chance to redeem yourselves by correcting
(assuming that you all could) yourselves and thus
show some virtue in you publicly...
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 20:40:21 |
Calls: | 6,667 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,216 |
Messages: | 5,337,252 |