I rolled 18 consecutive ‘Large Straights’ when I didn’t need them. And I was so happy to get it on my first roll! :rolleyes:
Four Sixes! Oh, but I took a 7 on ‘Four of a Kind’ because it was a gift on the third-to-last turn. ‘Three of a Kind’ was filled long ago. Also the ‘Twelve’ on the sixes, making sure I missed the bonus on the top half.
Computer player always gets a Large Straight on the first roll.
I understand the meaning of each of the words in your post, but together they make no sense to me whatsoever. I’m guessing though that you are in a place of self-inflicted pain, both from the booze and the Yahtzee.
oh yeah as someone who used to play Yahtzee the actual game computer game online game and handheld game … i know the lament of which you wail
Just watch out for cheaters if you play with people online they use programs … its why i quit playing scrabble … because everyone was cheating …
It’s much easier to cheat at scrabble (where you can just use a computer to give you the best word for a given situation) than Yahtzee, where the computer generates your dice rolls.
I play a fair amount of Yahtzee with my son, who still beats me occasionally despite his odd decision making.
It really is bad faith that the apps don’t generate true random dice rolls.
But the goal is not to give a true life game playing experience. The goal is to maximize your engagement time in order to present advertisements to you. I suppose they have determined that rigged dice rolls will do that better than random dice rolls.
Anyone here heard of Balut? It’s very similar to Yahtzee; one difference is the absence of rows to score 1’s, 2’s and 3’s (though I think those rows add strategy). My businessman acquaintance tells of chartering a helicopter to ferry him and his friends from Hongkong to Manila just for a Balut game! :smack:
I’m skeptical of this claim, unless someone has done some prospective statistical analysis proving that the dice are rigged. Humans are very susceptible to confirmation bias, and extremely poor at judging randomness.
Some computers now have hardware RNGs, e.g. to generate keys for unbreakable encryption. These might involve radioactivity and a Geiger counter, but I think most work with simple background thermal noise.
But I think hardware RNG is the exception. I’ve watched a YouTube about someone cracking the software RNG of some casino game or lottery. (But he was incautious and went to prison.)
RNG = random number generator. RNGs need a seed to start generating those ‘random’ numbers. Once seeded and the resulting random number is generated, the follow-on generated numbers after that are truly random.
How about generated numbers that are truly random, paired with an algorithm to ignore certain results? I’ve heard of such a thing happening in other games.
It depends on what you mean by random. For most applications even if the numbers are predictably generated from a fixed script, so long as they are normal they should work ok for playing games or running simulations. When I need a quick set of random digits and for a single application I often just use the successive digits of pi. They are totally predictable, but are unbiased and pattern free, certainly better than trying to generate random numbers in my head. The only difficulty is if like in septimus’ example where unpredictability is a requirement. The main problem with simple random number generators is that they tend to have loops. So if you are running a very large simulation, you start getting the same numbers in the same order over and over again.
Nitpick: The period of the Mersenne Twister, perhaps the most popular PRNG in use today, is alleged to be about 10[sup]600[/sup] — that’s one septillion raised to the 25th power.
Ah, that’s right. The Drink. 
I already mentioned the guy who beat a Keno system (or some such game) that derived from a software RNG.