It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
SirPrimalform: This somewhat ties into a conversation I was having with Bookwyrm last night. We were talking about the ABBAAB shooting pattern you guys adopted at the end. Bookwyrm reckoned it conferred a statistical advantage to have two shots in a row, but I'm of the opinion that it would have only given a statistical advantage if each shot was individually rolled. With a predetermined single bullet location, the decision to take a single or double shot is more a strategic one about guessing where the bullet is.
avatar
ZFR: Mathematically it doesn't matter. It's 50-50 regardless of whether you decide to take 2 bullets in a row or just one.
That's what I thought. If each shot was a separate dice roll then getting two in a row would make a difference though.
avatar
ZFR: Mathematically it doesn't matter. It's 50-50 regardless of whether you decide to take 2 bullets in a row or just one.
avatar
SirPrimalform: That's what I thought. If each shot was a separate dice roll then getting two in a row would make a difference though.
Oh yes. In that case the sooner you shoot the better.
avatar
adaliabooks: I don't think the second one would work... It means there is no strategy or choice involved with when to shoot.
As it is you've got to try and guess where the bullet is and decide whether to shoot now or hold off.
avatar
SirPrimalform: This somewhat ties into a conversation I was having with Bookwyrm last night. We were talking about the ABBAAB shooting pattern you guys adopted at the end. Bookwyrm reckoned it conferred a statistical advantage to have two shots in a row, but I'm of the opinion that it would have only given a statistical advantage if each shot was individually rolled. With a predetermined single bullet location, the decision to take a single or double shot is more a strategic one about guessing where the bullet is.
Whoa whoa whoa. I didn't say it was a statistical advantage (one moment while I double check...yep, didn't say statistical, since I haven't checked the statisticals on it), I said it gives you more chances. Specially, in ABBAAB, the first person gets initiative (which may work out, ala Agent vs Adalia), but going second gives you more chambers in the early slots.

avatar
ZFR: Regardless, for me at least, unlike regular mafia, Russian Roulette is more of a fun random-shoot game... And one of these days I'll actually get to shoot at another player, instead of myself.
It's (mostly) a fun random-shoot game for me too. And to be fair, you've had two chances to shoot at other people. ;)
avatar
Bookwyrm627: Whoa whoa whoa. I didn't say it was a statistical advantage (one moment while I double check...yep, didn't say statistical, since I haven't checked the statisticals on it), I said it gives you more chances. Specially, in ABBAAB, the first person gets initiative (which may work out, ala Agent vs Adalia), but going second gives you more chambers in the early slots.
Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent you. I inferred from what you said that you thought it was a statistical advantage because otherwise I see no reason you'd particularly want more chances at the early slots. Let's forget about the word statistical. Hopefully I'm correct in saying you think there is an advantage (of any kind) in getting a back-to-back shot?

The bullet is no more likely to be in any chamber than any other, thus there's no reason that having more of the early chambers is better.
Post edited December 17, 2018 by SirPrimalform
avatar
SirPrimalform: Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent you. I inferred from what you said that you thought it was a statistical advantage because otherwise I see no reason you'd particularly want more chances at the early slots. Let's forget about the word statistical. I'm correct in saying you think there is an advantage (of any kind) in getting a back-to-back shot?

The bullet is no more likely to be in any chamber than any other, thus there's no reason that having more of the early chambers is better.
Eh, okay, that's fair. I guess there is implicit probability involved.

-Running from a lack of initial knowledge, the chance of making the shot from the first chamber is 1/6. ~16% win rate?
-When you know the first chamber isn't loaded, then the naive chance of the second chamber holding the shot is 1/5, but using the second AND third chambers gives you 1/5 + 1/4. Rolling for that 20% + 25% win seems nicer to me than hoping your opponent fails the 25%. If you lose, then your opponent gets 33% + 50%.
-Of course, you could leave the third shot to your opponent, leaving you hoping the 25% fails so you can make the 33% + 50% rolls.

On the flip side, I also use the rule of thumb that "Opponents can't breathe bullets". The more shots I put in the air faster, the more likely I am to get a hit. :)
avatar
Bookwyrm627: Eh, okay, that's fair. I guess there is implicit probability involved.

-Running from a lack of initial knowledge, the chance of making the shot from the first chamber is 1/6. ~16% win rate?
-When you know the first chamber isn't loaded, then the naive chance of the second chamber holding the shot is 1/5, but using the second AND third chambers gives you 1/5 + 1/4. Rolling for that 20% + 25% win seems nicer to me than hoping your opponent fails the 25%. If you lose, then your opponent gets 33% + 50%.
-Of course, you could leave the third shot to your opponent, leaving you hoping the 25% fails so you can make the 33% + 50% rolls.

On the flip side, I also use the rule of thumb that "Opponents can't breathe bullets". The more shots I put in the air faster, the more likely I am to get a hit. :)
Aha, yes I understand now. I have no idea whether it's correct as statistics and probability aren't my thing but it seems to make sense. Thanks!
avatar
Bookwyrm627: ...
From a general point of view, if the chamber size is even, then:

If n shots have been fired and I have a choice of doing a single shot or double shot this means that:
_ n+1 shot is mine, no matter what I do.
_ If I do a double shot, I get n+2, opponent gets n+3. If I do a single shot, opponent gets n+2 and I get n+3.
_ P(n+2) is equal to P(n+3) since bullet was put randomly (Note to self: exception is if the mod (*cough* Bookwyrm *cough*) decides to disregard a draw and reroll).
_ Either choice recursively takes us to a state equivalent to one of (no shots fired OR one of us fired a single shot).

Ergo, statistically the choice is statistically irrelevant.
avatar
Bookwyrm627: -Running from a lack of initial knowledge, the chance of making the shot from the first chamber is 1/6. ~16% win rate?
-When you know the first chamber isn't loaded, then the naive chance of the second chamber holding the shot is 1/5, but using the second AND third chambers gives you 1/5 + 1/4. Rolling for that 20% + 25% win seems nicer to me than hoping your opponent fails the 25%. If you lose, then your opponent gets 33% + 50%.
-Of course, you could leave the third shot to your opponent, leaving you hoping the 25% fails so you can make the 33% + 50% rolls.

On the flip side, I also use the rule of thumb that "Opponents can't breathe bullets". The more shots I put in the air faster, the more likely I am to get a hit. :)
Hmmm...

Without prior knowledge, the first shot has a 1/6 chance of hitting. However, if I see that the first shot hasn't hit, then firing the second AND third chambers gives you a 3/6 chance of hitting. If neither of those hit, firing the fourth AND fifth shots gives a 5/6 chance of hitting. And obviously then you get a 6/6 chance of hitting if the first five shots were blanks.

Monty Hall Problem. I think that's a correct application.

I think wanting to fire first or second depends on what chances you want to take. Firing first give the other player a significant chance (1/2) of hitting before you get an even more significant chance (5/6) of hitting. Firing second gives you the significant chance first, but it's less significant.

EDIT:
avatar
ZFR: ...
You're right about the overall probability, but I do think there's a statistical difference between firing first and firing second.
Post edited December 17, 2018 by agentcarr16
avatar
agentcarr16: I think wanting to fire first or second depends on what chances you want to take. Firing first give the other player a significant chance (1/2) of hitting before you get an even more significant chance (5/6) of hitting. Firing second gives you the significant chance first, but it's less significant.
... which adds up to 1/2 vs 1/2.

With an even sized chamber, no matter what choice you make (regarding hitting first or not), each choice ultimately ends with 3 (or half of whatever the chamber size is) possible shots each.

With an odd-sized chamber, there might be a situation where it's better not to do a double shot (i.e. not to go first). A zugzwang. e.g. if this was 5-chamber gun, then after agent went first, adalia is better off firing only a single shot. If he fires double, it goes MTTMM, so adalia should fire a single shot and hope agent blunders and fires a shot next, making it MTMTT. Of course with agent being smart enough, he'd not fire too, and it would end up MT... (deadline fires randomly).
avatar
agentcarr16: I think wanting to fire first or second depends on what chances you want to take. Firing first give the other player a significant chance (1/2) of hitting before you get an even more significant chance (5/6) of hitting. Firing second gives you the significant chance first, but it's less significant.
avatar
ZFR: ... which adds up to 1/2 vs 1/2.

With an even sized chamber, no matter what choice you make (regarding hitting first or not), each choice ultimately ends with 3 (or half of whatever the chamber size is) possible shots each.

With an odd-sized chamber, there might be a situation where it's better not to do a double shot (i.e. not to go first). A zugzwang. e.g. if this was 5-chamber gun, then after agent went first, adalia is better off firing only a single shot. If he fires double, it goes MTTMM, so adalia should fire a single shot and hope agent blunders and fires a shot next, making it MTMTT. Of course with agent being smart enough, he'd not fire too, and it would end up MT... (deadline fires randomly).
Yes, I agree. But if I fire first, you get your 1/2 chance of hitting me BEFORE I get my 1/2 chance of hitting you.
avatar
agentcarr16: Yes, I agree. But if I fire first, you get your 1/2 chance of hitting me BEFORE I get my 1/2 chance of hitting you.
No.

(Assuming all double shots):

If you fire first, I get a 2/5 of hitting you BEFORE you get another chance. If I miss you get a 2/3 chance of killing me.

So your probability is: first_chance + (assuming I miss)second_chance
= 1/6 + (5/6)*(3/5)*(2/3) = 1/2

Allowing me to fire first gives you, assuming I miss, a 2/5 chance of killing me straightaway and, assuming you miss and I miss again, a 100% chance of killing me with the last bullet.

= (5/6)*(2/5) + (5/6)*(3/5)*(1/3)*(1/1) = 1/2.

In the final round, it doesn't matter what choice you make. None of the choices made by you or adalia really mattered in the final round.
(except the trivial choice of firing if your opponent has done so already, lest deadline kills you).
Post edited December 17, 2018 by ZFR
avatar
agentcarr16: Yes, I agree. But if I fire first, you get your 1/2 chance of hitting me BEFORE I get my 1/2 chance of hitting you.
avatar
ZFR: No.

(Assuming all double shots):

If you fire first, I get a 2/5 of hitting you BEFORE you get another chance. If I miss you get a 2/3 chance of killing me.

So your probability is: first_chance + (assuming I miss)second_chance
= 1/6 + (5/6)*(3/5)*(2/3) = 1/2

Allowing me to fire first gives you, assuming I miss, a 2/5 chance of killing me straightaway and, assuming you miss and I miss again, a 100% chance of killing me with the last bullet.

= (5/6)*(2/5) + (5/6)*(3/5)*(1/3)*(1/1) = 1/2.

With the final bullet, it doesn't matter what choice you make. None of the choices made by you or adalia really mattered in the final round.
(except the trivial choice of firing if your opponent has done so already, lest deadline kills you).
OK, I've convinced myself that you're right.
Just read this post in detail.

avatar
Bookwyrm627: but using the second AND third chambers gives you 1/5 + 1/4. Rolling for that 20% + 25% win seems nicer to me than hoping your opponent fails the 25%. If you lose, then your opponent gets 33% + 50%.
No! You don't add here. You DON'T get 20%+25%.

Your probability is actually 20% + (assuming you miss first)25%, which is equal to 20% + 80%*25% = 2/5 or 40%.
(another way of arriving at the same result is looking at it as having 2 bullets out of 5).

So while 20% and 25% does seem nicer, in reality the combined effect is only 40%, and as shown before mathematically it amounts to the same thing.
Post edited December 18, 2018 by ZFR
avatar
SirPrimalform: but using the second AND third chambers gives you 1/5 + 1/4. Rolling for that 20% + 25% win seems nicer to me than hoping your opponent fails the 25%. If you lose, then your opponent gets 33% + 50%.
avatar
ZFR: No! You don't add here.
Well no, I don't... because I didn't post that. :D
avatar
ZFR: No! You don't add here.
avatar
SirPrimalform: Well no, I don't... because I didn't post that. :D
Sorry, wrong quotes.