Dice Roller low numbers?

[Rex]

I know the feeling for sure.

[Ithril]

Very true Bluetongue. I just had the best set of rolls ever on here actually. My character Conweena, a shield maiden just hit and one shot killed a stupid number of consecutive times.

Your damage rolls were high, and your opponents are easy. I'm not sure the next group you encounter will be so easy to deal with, DiceRoller bias or no. I'm glad to see the DiceRoller uses Random.org for the seed to it's calculations. That is about as random as you can manage on a computer.

It was still very satisfying though

[Rex]

The next group may very well finish us considering how bad a shape some of the group are in. Those rolls were crazy all around for sure, easily the best streak I have had on here for sure.

[Zhym]

Statistically speaking you shouldn't be able to make a 50-50 roll consistently.

Right, but over time you should make it about 1/2 the time. I didn't word that quite right. It felt like on one series I only made it about 1/4 the time. It was probably better, but definitely not 50% of the time.

Yes, but the idea that you should expect to see a 50-50 roll about 50% of the time only applies for large numbers. "Time" is measured over hundreds or thousands of rolls, not 20.

And getting an average that's exactly the middle value is actually quite uncommon. For example, the chances of flipping a coin 20 times and getting exactly 10 heads and 10 tails are only about 17.6%.

I don't know much about forensic accounting, but my understanding is that this is one of the ways that people can catch made-up numbers: real random data sets don't look at all like what people think random data sets should look like (for another example: people think long strings of the same number happen less often in random sequences than they really do).