9600x on Monopoly first bet of stream
- Thread starter iReflex
- Start date
- Status
,
dirtystack
New member
If shit like this didn't happen every now and then it wouldn't be be random now would it?
8.333% of the time the first roll on Monopoly will total Four
After the 4 is rolled, the second roll will total Six 13.889% of the time
Looking at it after the fact to ascertain what the odds of it all happening prior to it ocurring is stupid as you ignore everything and cherry pick an extremely rare occurrence. In this case the chance landing and been a 10x multi followed by a spin resulting in two rolls and those two rolls been an 8.333% chance followed by a 13.889% chance.
Lets just exaggerate the crap out of it and say it was a 1 000 000 to one chance.
Now we go a bit deeper and look what was before the chance, 1t was a 1 !!!, that means we are up to a 2 000 000 to 1 chance of it rolling 1 followed by chance followed by 2 rolls followed by a 8.333% chance dice roll followed by a 13.889% chance roll.
Lets go further, before the 1 it was a 10, there is only 4 of those on the board(guessing) that means we are now at a 8 000 000 to 1 chance of there having been spun a 10 followed by 1 followed by chance followed by 2 rolls follewd by a 8.333% chance dice roll followed by a 13.889% chance roll.
Even further, before the 10 there was a 2, that means we are now at a 24 000 000 to 1 chance of it rolling 2 followed by 10 followed by 1 followed by chance followed by 2 rolls followed by a 8.333% chance dice roll followed by a 13.889% chance roll.
Before the 10 there was 4 Rolls, Omg we are now at a 1 296 000 000 to one chance that it happened to roll 4 rolls followed by 2 followed by 10 followed by 1 followed by chance followed by 2 rolls followed by a 8.333% chance dice roll followed by a 13.889% chance roll.
It's rare yes.
It must be rigged.
You can pick and series of rolls and try to figure out what the odds of it happening, prior to it happening, is and come up with some billion to one chance, but you ignore all the boring sequences which are just as highly improbable highly improbable prior to it happening.
Figure what the odds of it rolling this sequence 1,1,5,2,1,10,2,5,1,1,5,10, or 1,2,1,1,1,2,5,10,2,1
Pick any sequence of numbers out there on any game, go to a roulette, dice game, big wheel, whatever and retroactively pick a series of numbers and see what the odds of that happening prior to it actually happening is.
On roulette for example, the odds that the next five spins will land 32,32,32,32,32 is the same as the next five spins landing 32,35,8,19,16 specifically.
If we look at a board and see that the last three spins were 32 we get this strange feeling that it was so improbable but the odds for those three 32's happening was the same as the three specific numbers preceding the triple 32 coming in the sequence that they did.
We don't know anything about maths, we have no knowledge base upon which we can draw to ascertain anything when it comes to the probability. If any of us want to prove anything based on our observations we have to learn how to actually interpret what we see.
It's just this silly notion, that exists in all of us, looking to past events to justify it's existence.
8.333% of the time the first roll on Monopoly will total Four
After the 4 is rolled, the second roll will total Six 13.889% of the time
Looking at it after the fact to ascertain what the odds of it all happening prior to it ocurring is stupid as you ignore everything and cherry pick an extremely rare occurrence. In this case the chance landing and been a 10x multi followed by a spin resulting in two rolls and those two rolls been an 8.333% chance followed by a 13.889% chance.
Lets just exaggerate the crap out of it and say it was a 1 000 000 to one chance.
Now we go a bit deeper and look what was before the chance, 1t was a 1 !!!, that means we are up to a 2 000 000 to 1 chance of it rolling 1 followed by chance followed by 2 rolls followed by a 8.333% chance dice roll followed by a 13.889% chance roll.
Lets go further, before the 1 it was a 10, there is only 4 of those on the board(guessing) that means we are now at a 8 000 000 to 1 chance of there having been spun a 10 followed by 1 followed by chance followed by 2 rolls follewd by a 8.333% chance dice roll followed by a 13.889% chance roll.
Even further, before the 10 there was a 2, that means we are now at a 24 000 000 to 1 chance of it rolling 2 followed by 10 followed by 1 followed by chance followed by 2 rolls followed by a 8.333% chance dice roll followed by a 13.889% chance roll.
Before the 10 there was 4 Rolls, Omg we are now at a 1 296 000 000 to one chance that it happened to roll 4 rolls followed by 2 followed by 10 followed by 1 followed by chance followed by 2 rolls followed by a 8.333% chance dice roll followed by a 13.889% chance roll.
It's rare yes.
It must be rigged.
You can pick and series of rolls and try to figure out what the odds of it happening, prior to it happening, is and come up with some billion to one chance, but you ignore all the boring sequences which are just as highly improbable highly improbable prior to it happening.
Figure what the odds of it rolling this sequence 1,1,5,2,1,10,2,5,1,1,5,10, or 1,2,1,1,1,2,5,10,2,1
Pick any sequence of numbers out there on any game, go to a roulette, dice game, big wheel, whatever and retroactively pick a series of numbers and see what the odds of that happening prior to it actually happening is.
On roulette for example, the odds that the next five spins will land 32,32,32,32,32 is the same as the next five spins landing 32,35,8,19,16 specifically.
If we look at a board and see that the last three spins were 32 we get this strange feeling that it was so improbable but the odds for those three 32's happening was the same as the three specific numbers preceding the triple 32 coming in the sequence that they did.
We don't know anything about maths, we have no knowledge base upon which we can draw to ascertain anything when it comes to the probability. If any of us want to prove anything based on our observations we have to learn how to actually interpret what we see.
It's just this silly notion, that exists in all of us, looking to past events to justify it's existence.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
