Talk:Dice game probabilities
Test runs[edit]
Test runs with 10000 samples show
0.5751 player 1 wins (agrees with shown probabilities)
0.3535 player 2 wins
0.0714 draws
and for the second part:
0.6405 player 1 wins (differs considerably)
0.3147 player 2 wins
0.0448 draws
Can somebody show the pseudo code ?
Walterpachl (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Second part is ten 5sided dice vs seven 6sided dice, no?Never mind, everyone else (i.e. Bearophile and I) used the wrong numbers. Your result is correct. Ledrug (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC) :) Still: Is your solution built analytically? Pseudocode? My attempt to translate it to REXX got stuck in the recursion. :( Walterpachl (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 Oh well. REXX and ooRexx show now the algorithm. What have we learned? Testing is always a good idea! Walterpachl (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Change of D's results: I don't have D, so I can't test. How did the corrected (or the previous, incorrect) results come about? Just being curious: Walterpachl (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Results compared[edit]
Numeric Digits 130 Say 3781171969/5882450000 /* 0.642788628717626159168373721835 C 0.6427886287176260 D 0.6427886287176262 ooRexx 0.642788628717626159168373721835 REXX 0.642788628717626159168373721835 PL/I 0.642703175544738770 Python 0.642788628718 Python v2 0.6427886287176262 Python v3 0.6427886287176262 Racket 0.6427886287176261591683737218335897457691948082856632865557718297648088806534692177579069945345901793 0.6427886287176261591683737218335897457691948082856632865557718297648088806534692177579069945345901792620421763040909824987887699853 ooRexx (*)0.64278862871762615916837372183358974576919480828566328655577182976480888065346921775790699453459017926204217630409098249878876998529524262849 Racket (3781171969/5882450000) */
Walterpachl (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Rational Arithmetic[edit]
Inspired by Racket I boosted ooRexx and PL/I by using Rational Arithmetic. Actually I should have used the implementation that can be found here on RC! but I rolled my own before looking. Walterpachl (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Possible extension?[edit]
Nice task. While implementing it, I found myself briefly misunderstanding the "draw" scenario and an interesting alternative occurred to me. What if a "draw" resulted in the game being rerun? This changes the probabilities fairly significantly (not just W/(W+L), but (W + D*k)/(W+L+D) for some k, which can be determined by running lots of trials or by calculus. That probably puts it more in the realm of a Project Euler task than RosettaCode, but might make a fun extension. Aspectcl (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)