Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Say I roll a dice 600 times.

Theoretically, you should expect 100 sixes.

But, say, I only got 80. Would this be enough to expect bias?

I'm looking for a generally accepted percentage off, or a formula to calculate when you would expect it to be biased, but I'll happily receive anything else.

share|cite|improve this question
Instead of bias-ness, how about... bias? – M Turgeon Feb 23 '12 at 16:45
Is that right? Ok. – ACarter Feb 23 '12 at 16:50
You have to be careful: if you are observing a very long series of tosses, and see an anomalously low number of $6$'s in the last $100$, you can't accuse the thrower of having switched to loaded dice. It is statistically wrong, and also may get you beat up. Drug companies play this game. They fund a large number of studies, and only announce the results of the good ones, meaning good for them. – André Nicolas Feb 23 '12 at 17:03
up vote 0 down vote accepted

A simple chi-square test is often used for this.

The sum $$ \sum \frac{(\text{observed} - \text{expected})^2}{\text{expected}} $$ means this: the "expected" number of times you see a "$1$" is $1/6$ of the number of times you throw the die; the "observed" number is how many times you actually get a $1$. See this article. There would be six terms in this sum.

If the die is unbiased, then this sum has approximately a chi-square distribution with $6-1=5$ degrees of freedom when the number of trials is large.

If this is so large that a chi-square random variable with $5$ degree of freedom would rarely be that large, then you reject the null hypothesis that the die is unbiased. How rare is "rare" is essentially a subjective economic decision. It's how frequently you get "false positives", i.e. how frequently you'd reject the null hypothesis when the die is actually unbiased.

There's a dumb stereotypical value of $5\%$ that gets used in medical journals. I.e. one false positive out of $20$ is OK; anything more is not. Using $1\%$ might be more sensible.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks. So, for my example, I have $\frac{(80-100)\sqrt}{100}$. This gives 4. So anything more than 4% off 100 is bias? (Feel free to sort out my code if you want.) – ACarter Feb 23 '12 at 17:02
@MichaelHardy I imagine that the reason for using a 5% threshold for significance is that a 5% threshold requires 400 people in your sample, whereas a 1% threshold needs 10,000 people. – Chris Taylor Feb 23 '12 at 17:28
@MDCCXXIX : I don't see that you're making any sense. We're talking about throwing a die 600 times. There are no "people" in the sample, and you certainly don't need anything like 10000 trials to get a chi-square statistic that is in the rejection region at the 1% level. 100 is plenty for that. – Michael Hardy Feb 23 '12 at 17:37
@ACarter : You haven't said how many times you got a 1, a 2, etc. So we've only got 6s and non-6s. The "expected" number of 6s is 100; the expected number of non-6s is 500. The "observed" numbers are 80 and 520. So the chi-square statistic would have only $1$ degree of freedom, and its value is $(80-100)^2/100 + (520-500)^2/500=4.8$. A chi-square random variable with $1$ degree of freedom has probability about $0.02846$ of exceeding $4.8$. So you'd reject the null hypothesis if you're willing to tolerate a $3\%$ chance of a false positive. – Michael Hardy Feb 23 '12 at 17:43
@MichaelHardy Absolutely, it makes no difference if you're rolling a dice (although I don't fancy rolling a dice 600 times, let alone any larger number). It makes a huge difference if you're conducting an expensive medical study. If you want a higher confidence level, it costs more to run the study - so I dispute your assertion that the value of 5% is 'dumb'. (The figure of 10,000 is the sample size you would need to be confident that a binomial proportion is within 1% of its true value). – Chris Taylor Feb 23 '12 at 17:53

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.