Rolling Dice

Being both a Yahtzee player and an RPG'er, I'd like to think I have a bit of experience with rolling dice, especially those with six sides. When I first started playing Yahtzee, both my roommate and I noticed a trend. If we were going to get a Yahtzee, it would most likely happen on 6's.

Six years later, I wonder if that was true or just our imagination. I tried searching the web, but I didn't find anything relevant. I asked my gaming group about it, and they generally agree that a dice with pips on it will roll high compared to a dice with numbers inscribed on it.

Anyone here have anything to say about it?

hmm... it could be that the dice you used were not fair, and so not perfectly balanced.

It's not just a dice or a set of dice. We change dice out pretty regularly.

Well, if the 1 is on the opposite side from the 6, it'd be a little heavier, so that might be it. I'd say it's probably a coincidence, though.

I agree that it could be more likely to get a Yahtzee with 6's than with 1's.
The reason for this is that if you get the same amount of 6's and some other numer when you toss the dice, you'll save the 6's, not the pair of lower numbers.

A solid mass, with some mass more removed on some sides then the other would tend to act in such a manner befitting thier existence. In such a case where the mass was of subtle density, and portions of mass so small that the effects would be menial and or negligent, on an average scale. However, on a larger, more real life scale would be quite profound. That is to say, of all the die, in all the universe, I'm sure that intelligent beings in the universe (should there exist any if at all) would have ruled out die as a random chance generator due to the fact that the larger number oppisite the smallest number (IE greatest difference in every so slight mass) was assuredly a sure win in universal terms.

>>I agree that it could be more likely to get a Yahtzee with 6's than with 1's.
The reason for this is that if you get the same amount of 6's and some other numer when you toss the dice, you'll save the 6's, not the pair of lower numbers.<<

Voice of reason. There is simply no way you could have rolled enough times to notice the extra probability alloted from the miniscule difference in weight between the 6 and the 1.

Originally Posted by PJYelton

>>I agree that it could be more likely to get a Yahtzee with 6's than with 1's.
The reason for this is that if you get the same amount of 6's and some other numer when you toss the dice, you'll save the 6's, not the pair of lower numbers.<<

Voice of reason. There is simply no way you could have rolled enough times to notice the extra probability alloted from the miniscule difference in weight between the 6 and the 1.

Actually you could think you notice in a small certainly finite number of rolls. However, it would merely ammount to coincidence rather then statistical proof. After all it is very possible that this young lad had the uncanny chance to roll 6's more often than not.

>>I agree that it could be more likely to get a Yahtzee with 6's than with 1's.
The reason for this is that if you get the same amount of 6's and some other numer when you toss the dice, you'll save the 6's, not the pair of lower numbers.<<

Voice of reason. There is simply no way you could have rolled enough times to notice the extra probability alloted from the miniscule difference in weight between the 6 and the 1.

("rolleyes", haha.. ya, no ok.) PJ, the statement you quoted has nothing to do with weight differences..

I know, I was agreeing with his logical reasoning which is why I called him the voice of reason. My second sentence was meant to strengthen why what Sang-drax said is a more plausible explanation.

Yup, I am certain that the weight difference is neglible.
But if I get a pair of 1's and a pair of 6's, I'll save the 6's for psychological reasons.

Oooh, I get it.

Yeah, S-D's explanation makes a lot more sense than mine does.