MATHEMATICS

SCHOOL BASED ASSESSMENT

Topic: Probability
Title: Is a regular six-faced gaming die biased?

Candidate Name: Anna-Lise Williams

Subject: Mathematics
School: Wolmer’s High School for Girls
Centre Number: 100129
Territory: Jamaica
Teacher: Mr. Aldridge
Year: 2022-2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................3

INTRODUCTION..................................................................... 4

METHODOLOGY.................................................................... 6

PRESENTATION OF DATA.................................................... 7

ANALYSIS OF DATA............................................................. 10

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS................................................ 12

CONCLUSION........................................................................ 13

REFERENCES AND SOURCES........................................... 14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to especially thank my teacher, Mr. Aldridge for guiding me
through this research project. I am extremely thankful for this opportunity to
research more on this topic. Secondly, I would like to thank my mother for
encouraging and assisting me every step of the way throughout this project. I
deeply appreciate and am extremely grateful for all the support and assistance of
those who aided me with this project.
PROJECT TITLE

Is a regular six-faced gaming die biased?

INTRODUCTION

Dice are commonly used in recreational board games such as Monopoly,

Dominos, and a Jamaican favourite, Luodo. These games are common in most
Jamaican households, or most Jamaicans have played these games at least once. In
these games, two or three dice are thrown and the numbers that appear are used to
play in the game. However, how common is it to get a double six in Dominos? Or
how easily can you roll a double six in Ludo?

The researcher and her mother tend to play Ludo on Fridays as their game
day. She can't help but notice that when the die is rolled in certain situations, for
example, if the die is rolled once, the probability of attaining a 4 or 5 is higher than
the other numbers. As a result, the researcher begins to think that the die might be
biased towards some numbers than others. This phenomenon is known as
probability.

Probability can be used to say how likely something is. It can also help us to
calculate the number of times an event will occur.

The probability of an event is a measure of how likely it is for that event to occur.
When we roll a dice all, six outcomes {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6} are equally likely.
When all outcomes are equally likely, the probability of an event is:
P(event)= number of successful outcomes
—————————————
total number of possible outcomes

So,

Probability × Total number of trials = Number of times the event occurs

Another example, the probability of a coin landing on heads is a half (/half fraction
here/), as there are two possible outcomes, heads and tails. A dice has 6 possible
outcomes, 1 to 6, so the probability of it landing on 5 is 1 out of 6 (/insert fraction
here/) and the probability of it landing on a number greater than 4 is 2 out of 5
(/insert fraction here/) or one third (/insert fraction here/).

Theoretical probability is what is expected to happen based on mathematics. The

formula is described as:

Desired Outcomes
————————
Total Outcomes

A probability of 38/100 means that the outcome is unlikely, as it is less than ½.

It means that, on average, we would expect the event to happen 38 times out of
every 100.

The purpose of this research is to prove whether or not a six-faced die is

biased towards specific numbers, namely, numbers one (1) through six (6) and to
assess the probability of attaining a double six under normal circumstances in a
board game. It is intended to benefit and teach the researcher and her classmates
more about the topic of Probability.
METHODOLOGY

The researcher first rolled a singular die for a total of one hundred and eighty (180)
times, in three (3) separate intervals, namely, ‘Test 1’, ‘Test 2’ and ‘Test 3’. The
frequency of each number (one to six) was recorded for each test. Next, the
researcher rolled three (3) different dice simultaneously, sixty (60) times. The
frequency of the numbers on the three dice was also recorded. The results of the
total two hundred and forty (360) rolls were then compared and analyzed.
PRESENTATION OF DATA

After the raw data was collected from observations, the data was put into tabular form. The table
and histogram below show the amount of times the die landed on each number in the first
interval. The majority of numbers rolled were 4, 5, and 6 with frequencies of 14, 11 and 12
respectively.

Test 1, frequencies of a single die thrown 60 times

The table and histogram below show the amount of times the die landed on each number in the
second interval. The number that was rolled most frequently was 1, with a frequency of 15.

Test 2, frequencies of a single die thrown 60 times

The table and histogram below show the amount of times the die landed on each number in the
third interval. The numbers that appeared most frequently were 2, 4 and 5 with frequencies of 12,
11 and 13 respectively.

Test 3, frequencies of a single die thrown 60 times

The table below shows the amount of times the die landed on each number in the fourth interval,
where three dice were thrown simultaneously.
The Pie Chart below displays the comparative frequencies of the numbers out of the total number
of tests, 360 as percentages. This pie chart is relatively equal.
ANALYSIS OF DATA

The first comparative bar chart displays the frequency at which the die was rolled and resulted in

either six of the numbers. From the results, we can deduce that the most frequent numbers that

had been rolled were all greater than four, with frequencies between 11 to 14, more specifically,

4 being the most frequent, with 14 occurrences, 6 being the second most frequent with 12

occurrences and 5 being the least frequent out of the three, with 11 occurrences. I found that this

however, out of all four trials has stayed constant, in that, for most of the tests, the results for 4, 5

and 6 have been greater than 10. Very few times have the frequencies for 1 to 3 resulted in a

value greater than 10.

In order to yield realistic results, these trials were all done on a flat surface, similar to that of a

Ludo board or a Domino board, however, these results are relatively objective and do not reveal

any attempt in affecting the outcome either way.

The second comparative bar chart displays that the number that was rolled most frequently was

1, with a frequency of 15. Compared to the previous histogram’s results, the frequency of the 1

from the previous chart was 8, resulting in a difference of 7 between the two, almost as much as

the frequency of the 1 from the first test. Although, there is evidence that there seemed to be a

slight difference between the frequencies of the 4, 5 and 6 from the previous chart and this chart.

For the first chart, there was a noticeable difference between the frequencies of the 4, 5 and 6 of

this chart. In their respective orders, 4 had a frequency of 7, 5 had a frequency of 11, akin to that
of 6. Between these two results, 5 had remained constant with frequencies of 11 for each,

resulting in a total of 22 (22/120), or 18.3%

In the third comparative bar chart, interestingly enough, the frequencies of 1 and 2 and 4 and 5

have somewhat balanced each other. 1’s frequency, 10, 2’s frequency, 12, 4’s frequency, 11 and

5’s frequency, 13.

From the fourth comparative bar chart, it is clear that for the number 1, the frequencies for all

three tests are the exact same, 11. This could prove that a die is indeed biased towards some

numbers, but it has not been consistent throughout the entirety of the tests. Therefore, it is not yet

safe to say that the die is biased.

The pie chart gives a visual representation of how close the frequencies are, hinting that the die

really is equal. However, the number with the most number of times rolled is 5 with 72/360 or

20% and the second highest being 1 with 66/360 or 18.3%. The difference between the two being

1.7%, which is insignificant, as it is very low.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

After analysing the data collected, the result was somewhat satisfying for me. In the pie chart,

the differences in the probability of the numbers thrown overall look almost the exact same, none

too big and none too small. Although the number 5, being the most probable, with 72/360 on the

pie chart, looks to be the largest section of the pie chart, one has to look very closely to see that it

is the largest slice, as well as the second largest number, 1, with 66/360. It is the same case with

the least probable number, the number 2, which has the smallest on the pie chart looks just as

similar as the other sections of the pie chart. Visually speaking, the numbers look as if they are

equally probable.

The relative frequency of the totality of the numbers, in consecutive order (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) are

5.5, 7.2, 6.8, 6, 5 and 6.1. If the largest and smallest numbers were subtracted (7.2 - 5), we would

have a difference of only 2.2. This Net Amount tells us that dice are fairly unbiased, since the

value is so small.
CONCLUSION

In analysing the results, it was found that the relative probability of each number landing

uppermost, as it would in an average board game, was as rather close. This proves that the

average gaming die is fairly unbiased, since the net value is so small.

A game of dominos or ludo is based on chance, and therefore, there is an equal probability of any

number landing upwards in any situation. Whenever I am playing Ludo, I now know that the

probability of landing a double six or a six is equally favourable as any other number on the dice.

It is recommended that, in the future, a cup should be used instead of a hand for a more concise

and accurate probability calculation.

REFERENCES AND SOURCES

Andrew Manning, Marcus Caine, Angella Finlay, Patricia George and Ava Mothersill, CXC
Study Guide Mathematics for CSEC 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017