[email protected] wrote on 31/03/2009 14:10:30: > 2009/3/30 Massimiliano Maini <[email protected]>: > > > A few comments (assuming my understanding is right): > > > > 1. Instead of going for the same rank, you could (at negliectible cost) > > select > > the roll for play B that gives the closest luck to the one obtained for play > > A. > > Should be more efficent than just taking the roll with the same rank. > > This will introduce errors since not all rolls in B will be chosen > with the same probability.
Well, you have the same problem when you chose according to the rank: you pick randomly in A, but then non-randomly in B. It's the goal. Or am I missing something ? > All in all an interesting idea, but complex and error prone. I am a > little afraid that we might throw the baby out with the bathwater - > since the current rollout code has some pretty complex improvements as > well (Quasi Random Dice AKA Stratification). I thought about how this mixes with stratification (the naming 'quasi random dice" sucks big time, IMHO). I think Bob's idea should only be applied to rolls subsequent to stratification. E.g.: 1296 trials = 36^2, then stratify 1st and 2nd roll, use Bobs' method 3rd roll on. I also think that Variance Reduction (Dahl's) should not be applied on perfectly stratified rolls since it can just introduce errors: average luck over the 36 (1296) rolls is zero. Anyway, I'm not convinced Bob's idea will improve by much: it's not even sure it will improve at all (compared to Var. Red.). MaX.
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
