[baggins]

probably. although, if you are the first to roll, there is no reason to lie about it. you only stand to lose. this can break down a bit if you are one of the last 2, but...

also, it helps to vary your 'bluffs' a bit. when i played it for the first time, i noticed a pattern in the way some people would bluff. they would automatically add 10 to the previous person's score. when i caught people doing that before me, i was able to bust some people out.

also, when the roll before you gets higher than a certain point, it becomes more likely that the person before you is bluffing. it also becomes harder to roll a higher score legitimately (which makes the guy after you more likely to call your inevitable bluff). it becomes better for you to call a bluff instead of having your bluff called after a certain point.

e.g. - if the rolling got around to me and the the previous player passes me the dice and announces 44, I'm going to probably check it, instead of trying to roll 55, 66, or 21. because a) its not likely i'll roll one of those, and i will be forced to lie, and b) knowing (a) the guy after me is more likely to call my bluff.

the trouble is, I don't know how to put this into a math equation to figure out the best game-theoretically sound point at which to look at the dice instead of trying to beat the roll.

it also works inversely for the low numbers.

i.e. - if someone announces 42, I'm going to have a good chance of beating that roll, so I'm losing if i call bluffs this low (unless i have a read, which happens often).

do my questions here make sense? anybody care to help out on a 'break even' rolling/calling strategy?