I actually had Google Sheets do a RANDBETWEEN(0,1) 25 times per actual random string. This was less than 150 times because not every string was actually random. If you were competent at math you would have realized based off the score I gave you that this was at most 125 flips.
1 Like
Yea yea yea, my compethincy doesn’t matter, I played your little charade, now please give us the prove you bluntly say you have about the game not being rigged, and let us all know what random means in computer programming. Stop beating around the bush, with your random() method which you don’t understand until proven otherwise.
Anyone around the glove can do random generated string using chat gpt…but you say you can explain it why is random, which you are not doing. By the way chat gpt even 4.0 cannot help you here, because all his answers will tell you the same thing, that random() method is not random
Nope. It’s just what random means.
Nope. You’re literally too stupid to understand. Pass the test first. Prove that you can tell the difference between random and not.
Yea sure :)…
My point was made…thank you for joining the debate…You can get your complementary t-shirt in the back of the room…
Please stop replying to my posts…I rested my case to your keyboard vigilante whatever you do crusade
Stop replying, period. You don’t know anything about what you’re talking about. You are the combination of ignorant and arrogant.
You’re like someone who thinks 1x1=2 talking about math.
Yea sure, petty little keyboard warrior, you are not even worth a report…
This is not even a debate, it’s me punching you from all the sides, and you like a kid hanging from your little charade
I was talking to you both. Him for his audacity and you for the arrogant and insulting assumption.
Well technically speaking, when arrogance is in your face you respond with the same coin…my arrogance is well stated and I can always put my knowledge in the face of it…Insults are just a repercussion of imbecility in general. I do not insult people who actually know what they are talking and can prove something…in this case he cannot. Even though I played his little game given his audacity of stating something that he doesn’t fully master
Sure but you were insulting me however unintentionally in that statement
Please let me know were, to delete it, since I do not even know were the hell I replied to you, or ever taken your replies into credit.
It may seem as arrogant but I didn’t mean it, I didn’t even read what you said.
It’s fine man. You just have at it. My point originally was to someone who isn’t even in here anymore.
Look bro I’m not saying that I’ve invented a six question true or false test for measuring general intelligence or IQ. I’m saying I’ve come up with a six question true or false test for the ability to see randomness. It’s analogous to being colorblind: tests for colorblindness also tend to be short, because it’s usually pretty quick to determine if people “get it” or not.
People that actually understand randomness will EASILY solve the test I presented. People that don’t see randomness, like colorblind people looking at a colorblindness test, won’t see anything. The only real issue here is Dania taking his inability to see personally and rejecting the validity of the test.
I am having trouble finding the right place here ethically because I have already acknowledged that most people are “randomness-blind.” On the one hand, I don’t want people to feel bad because they can’t see randomness, that’s actually normal. And when thinking about the ethics of using randomness in game mechanics we should always keep that fact in the front of our minds. But on the other hand I’m tired of tinfoil hat morons taking the role of the blind leading the blind and saying that because someone we don’t like can commit a crime, that means that they do commit the crime. I want to say that it’s fine not to see it, just please, if you don’t understand it stop making stupid theories.
It’s quantifiable. You not wanting to belive something doesn’t make it stupid. And your random test is not at all the same concept as a color blind test. Really man, get over yourself.
See now, I am a man of culture…You somehow think that your test is tailored to explain randomness…
Now I took your petty little test , explained my answer and given you an answer (not ashamed of my displayed idiocracy, took my best shot)…Can you enlighten us little humans with your elevated answer of the test, so thatI at least know were I was wrong in my judgment ?
Please be more articulated than “until you pass you are nothing” , cuz it’s getting old…Your test is like asking a child if he wants chocolate ice cream or vanilla and telling him he cannot get either until he replies with what answer you want (a delusional example would be “you don’t want either cuz yea ice cream is bad”)
I won’t say your test is stupid ( which is) , I will just ask for an explanation so that we all can see in this debate, how stupid I am and how smart you were when you designed it to prove whatever.
I already took my best shot at your test so you might as well as give us an explanation on why I am stupid and couldn’t solve your test…My answer is above it won’t be changed.
And after you prove why I am an illiterate idiot and don’t know what random is, you can also explain in your point of view what random is in computer programming, and show us proof of how the game isn’t rigged.
And we can all put our keyboards in our drawers and call it a finished war.
Sure. I expected you to ask, in a less pompous manner, sooner. I’d like to do a really good job though, so give me a few to type something up proper.
It was still pompous, but yea, since I have given you the gun in the hand, please take your time to design a proper answer…A better answer than your test even tried to prove. And try to sound more rational in your reply, better than you are wrong you know nothing I am smart I designed riddle and want to act smart and I am right…
So that everyone get’s a fair shot at your logic, much as they had a fair shot in what I replied.
They removed coffee’s post? Interesting…
Sorry about the delay, IRL stuff happened. (Edit2: not actually sorry)
The main issue that most people have with misunderstanding randomness involves the gambler’s fallacy. Investopedia (first Google result lol) defines the gambler’s fallacy as “when an individual erroneously believes that a certain random event is less likely or more likely to happen based on the outcome of a previous event or series of events.” When you confront most people with this information directly, they say that they understand and acknowledge it as a fallacy. But this doesn’t truly resonate with them, and they continue to believe it on a subconscious level. You can see posts to this effect on these forums over and over again, stuff like “I lost a 1 in 10 then another 1 in 10 then another 1 in 10, this just can’t be random.” The truth is the opposite, all truly random systems produce that result inevitably if the lever is pulled often enough.
With true random samples, the bigger the sample becomes, the larger the longest “streak” becomes. Here’s a handy table for coin flips:
table
| sample size | avg length of longest streak |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1.000 |
| 2 | 1.500 |
| 3 | 2.000 |
| 4 | 2.375 |
| 5 | 2.688 |
| 6 | 2.938 |
| 7 | 3.156 |
| 8 | 3.344 |
| 9 | 3.512 |
| 10 | 3.662 |
| 11 | 3.799 |
| 12 | 3.924 |
| 13 | 4.039 |
| 14 | 4.146 |
| 15 | 4.245 |
| 16 | 4.338 |
| 17 | 4.425 |
| 18 | 4.508 |
| 19 | 4.585 |
| 20 | 4.659 |
| 21 | 4.729 |
| 22 | 4.796 |
| 23 | 4.860 |
| 24 | 4.921 |
| 25 | 4.980 |
| 26 | 5.036 |
| 27 | 5.091 |
| 28 | 5.143 |
| 29 | 5.193 |
| 30 | 5.242 |
| 31 | 5.289 |
| 32 | 5.335 |
| 33 | 5.380 |
If you want the formula for this, it’s a(n)/2^(n-1), where n is the number of flips and a(n) is the nth term of this integer sequence: https://oeis.org/A102712
The average person can hold approximately seven different things in their head at once. (This is well established in the psychological literature.) So the average person tends to append the samples in their personal experience to a size of seven. If you look at the chart for a sample size of 7, you can see how the average, randomness-blind person has a strong preference for random streaks of 3 being identifiable with the randomness of coinflips. Give them a streak of 4 or greater in a sample with size greater than 10, and they start going by feels, irrationality kicks back in and they start subconsciously going back to the gambler’s fallacy. In contrast, anyone who has worked with large random samples, e.g. actually done 25+ physical coinflips in a row on multiple occasions, would recognize that streaks of 5 are not only possible but to be expected in such samples.
So when I made the test, I made an algorithm that rigged things towards the gambler’s fallacy. Because if you rig things towards the gambler’s fallacy, the typical human is MORE likely to say that it’s random, than if it’s actually random. Because my rigged algorithm biases more towards the opposite flip the more of a same flip it gets in a row, it makes streaks of 4 or more virtually impossible.
Edit: to be clear, I didn’t know the exact formula for average length at the time I made the test. I determined it precisely in preparation for writing this post. But I did understand generally that people tend to underestimate the length of streaks in large random samples.
I believe that if this explanation is understood, it is obvious what the correct answers to my test are, and providing them directly is unnecessary. But if requested, I will anyway.
Edit: to save you the burden of scrolling up…
It’s not what legally constitutes proof but it is strong evidence. And I noticed the patterns long before I reseached, I don’t have any vendetta against blizzard or even knock them for it. They’re a business and I wouldn’t expect any less then them to take advantage of thier customers while not openly admitting to it. That’s what most, if not all, businesses do. I mean, come on… why wouldn’t they use it when nothing stops them? Obviously, the only thing that would satisfy your idea of proof would be for blizzard to publicly address the entire hearthstone community and say “hey guys, I know we said it’s random but really we use this software we patented”. That’s your bias not ours. Also, who are you quoting when you say “given”?
1 Like
The biggest reason is that randomness is cheap, easy and extremely effective at fostering addiction. You’re basically just assuming without evidence that an evil genius would decide to use rigging instead of randomness when both options are available.
While I believe that there might be nonrandom algorithms that are more effective than simple randomness, these would be quite rare and very expensive to develop. It’s not necessarily the best use of resources, nor a high priority.
You still obviously haven’t read the patent. Maybe you skimmed some section or another, but you don’t understand how the system that they patented actually works.