Talk:Liar's dice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Clarification of a sentence[edit]

What does "One player begins bidding, picking a number 2 through 6. He then tenders a number which he guesses to be equal to or less than the cardinality of the set of dice displaying this number on their top surface." mean? I think it means "One player bids a number of dice (1 to 5) having a particular value (2 to 6), eg 4 threes." -- SGBailey 10:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

One can bid any amount of dice with the face values of 2 through 6 and is stated as "three 4s" to claim that there are at least three dice with a face value of 4. Since a 1 is considered wild it is worth more when bidding. Each round of bidding must increase either the face value or the amount of dice bid. Bidding three 4s would successfully raise a bid of three 3s because the face value has increased. Bidding four 2s would also raise a bid from three 3s because the amount being bid has increased.
A 1, due to it being wild, is worth twice as much as a face value between 2 through 6. This is mentioned underneath the variants section. Examples of how it affects bidding would be that a bid of two 1s would top a bid of four 6s while a bid of five 2s would top both two 1s and four 6s.
My notation for labeling bids is arbitrary. I find that listing the number for face value makes it easier to visualize the bid, but that is personal preference. I would encourage an update to clarify the confusing parts of the current edit. If the above paragraphs satisfy the ether, they may be inserted in an edit. MrHen

Mäxchen or Mädchen?[edit]

I'm wondering if perhaps the name of the "Mexican"-like game in question might not be "Mädchen", rather than "Mäxchen"? I mention it because a) the latter is not only extremely awkward, pronunciation-wise, in German, but is also not a word; b) the former is a very common word indeed (means "young lady" or, more literally, "maiden"--and in fact sounds very much like that English word) and c) the two letters sit close to each other on the keyboard. I changed the article, but then changed it back, since I'm really not sure. Buck 09:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's "Mäxchen", or "Mäx" if you ask an Austrian. "Mäxchen" is a common, if dated, diminutive of the personal name, Max(imilian). As the name of the game - and the highest possible dice result in the game - it's usually believed to derive from "maximum", though, which would sort of answer the question which came first ("Mäxchen" or "Mexican"), too. Lewis

You're right that the name of a popular german dice game is "Mäxchen" instead of "Mädchen", but the point is that it is not this game. Mäxchen is only played with two dice for the whole group of players wich are passed from one player to another, neither is the goal to keep one's own dice - like in Liar's dice - for one doesn't have his/her own. The german game called "Mäxchen" is exactly what is described in the English wikipedia article Mia (game) while the rules described in Liar's dice coincide with those of the German game "Bluff". Compare the rules: Mia (game) = Mäxchen, Liar's diceBluff. I will change the article accordingly. (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Rules (Mexican)" section is a mess[edit]

This section needs a rewrite very badly, for several reaons. I'm leaving this post as a heads-up to whoever wrote it, so that when I rewrite it (early next week) it won't look like I'm destroying their baby without fair warning. Don't worry: I'm not planning to change any rules or anything like that, but the tone and the prose in general are far from encyclopedic, and needs adjustment. Also, it seems to me that this game is sufficiently distinct from ordinary Liar's Dice that it might warrant its own page, but that can probably wait. Buck 09:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Spiel des Jahres?[edit]

This article is in the "Spiel des Jahres winners" category, but I can find no mention - here or elsewhere - of when it won.

Since "Spiel des Jahres" is generally awarded to new, designed games, I am sceptical that it would elegible for the award.

--Parsingphase 20:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it won - in 1993, the award was won by "Bluff" [1] which was a commercial verion of Liar's Dice [2]. Percy Snoodle 09:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking at an old Hoyle, the "Liar Dice" described is a two handed game where each player describes his own five dice only, with no wild dice, thus the maximum bid is five sixes. The Spiel des Jahres winner "Bluff" has several innovations over that basic game: sixes are wild and replaced by stars; bidding predicts the total number of dice of a kind of all players (up to six); bidding goes along a board, a one star bid (not receiving any wild card benefit) being between one and two of a kind, and similarly throughout the bidding sequence; players lose a die or dice when they call incorrectly or are called and their prediction is wrong; the game continues until only one player has any dice, a rare case of elimination in a German game. This game was sold in the US as "Call my Bluff", and IIRC Milton Bradley did a similar version, perhaps licensed, called Liar's Dice, using conventional dice (no star).

Bluff really deserves its own entry as a Spiel des Jahres winner. I cannot now write that article, not having the game myself.

Note: The article lists this game as having won the Deutsche Spiel prize. It didn't! It placed 4th See: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


The current article has wilds listed underneath the variations section but in the listing of how to bid it assumes that only values 2 through 6 listed as valid bids. The version I learned came shipped in a box from a gaming store and had rules for the bidding with wilds variation. Are there variations where bidding on wilds is not allowed? Are these variations more common? MrHen

Article needs a rewrite[edit]

This article reads poorly, and is very disorganized. I'd suggest taking the article down for a total rewrite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Pirate's Dice browser game[edit]

I've got a few friends who love Pirate's Dice as much as I do (a lot), but I don't see them in person to play very often. I had the idea for a multiplayer Pirate's Dice game which we could play over the Internet, and only recently got around to it. The game is available here --tj9991 05:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Error in Popular Culture section[edit]

The section In Popular Culture, the first bullet, relating to Pirates of the Caribbean, incorrectly states that they played under the first variant.

"(The betting is legal under the first variant rule - never allowing a decrease in quantity - but it is impossible to tell if this rule is in effect or if this is coincidence.)"

If you watch the movie, you see this is incorrect. At one point, Bootstrap Bill raises the number of dice but lowers the face, which is not allowed in the rules variant.

I added a note about the BD-Java Liar's Dice game on the Blu-ray release of Dead Man's chest. Super Saiyan Musashi 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of common hand section?[edit]

I'm a bit perplexed. The only version I ever encountered uses both of the first two variations as it's currently written (raise must include at least as many dice, and players lose one die upon losing a challenge with the winner being the last one with any dice). Is this what other people have encountered, and so should it be promoted to the basic rules, with deviations in current basic rules listed as variations? If you think so, please chime in here so someone will eventually be bold enough to make the change.

A related issue: I don't understand how the game is won with the basic common-hand rules as stated, if players don't lose dice when losing a challenge. Is each round a separate game? Must there therefore be wagers on each round to keep things interesting? This could be clarified by someone who knows more about the game than I. Thanks!Jbening 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Increase the face or increase the quantity with any face.[edit]

Currently, the main section on the Common Hand version reads:

In turn, each player must either raise the bid or challenge the previous bid. Raising the bid means either increasing the quantity of the previous face or selecting any quantity with an increased face.

There is another variant, not mentioned in the "Variants" section, in which the player can either raise the face for the current quantity, or make a bid of any face for an increased quantity. For example, if the current bid is 5 threes, the next bid could be 5 fours, 5 fives, 5 sixes, or 6 (or more) of any face. This is the version used in Nokia games.

Ordinary Person 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Liar's Dice vs Perudo vs Mexican: Merge/Split/Re-index?[edit]

The articles for "Common Hand" Liar's Dice and for Dudo/Perudo should, I believe, be merged. Common Hand Liar's dice, as described, is a simpler version of Perudo, and the variants listed, particularly the variants where the loser gives up a die and is out when he/she has no more dice, and where aces are wild but can be bid by halving the previous bid quantity, are the main differences between Perudo and the game of Liar's Dice as described.

The problem is that the game described as Mexican or "individual hand", where players share one set of dice, and the game described as "common hand" or Perudo, are in the same family of dice games but are in fact fundamentally different.

I recommend that we perform a combination of splitting and re-merging. The Perudo article should contain the "common hand" games of Perudo and its simpler variants, while this article should either be renamed Mexican Liar's Dice or similar and describe the "passed dice" or "individual hand" variants. In addition, there should be a disambiguation page such that when "Liar's Dice" is searched for, the user will be able to choose between these two types of Liar's Dice. 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an incvasion of Perudo, which is just a commercial derivative of this game, Perudo should be kept to it's own article with a mention of it as a variation Leevanjackson (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There really is a web of similar articles all with very subtle variations. Perudo, as has been mentioned, is just a trademarked "Dudo" (I think, from the articles. I'm no expert on this matter). I started some discussion about removing Perudo or merging some of the pages here before coming across this page. I'll look into it more later, but there's definitely no reason for the duplication of information across so many pages we have at the moment, imo. --BlueNovember (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the histories of the different names and versions notable. I'd like to see each article continued but more tightly focused on its subject. And the commonality of these games clearly noted in each article. (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Playing strategies WP:NOT?[edit]

I am not sure if this applies to games and strategies, but WP:NOT states that wikipedia is not a how to, so I'll leave it here for editor's to ponder Leevanjackson (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I grant that it can be read as a How-To and thus violates WP:NOT. However I think it is important to at least mention the rationale behind making and challenging bids, similar to a basic run-down of Poker strategy and how that would be important to someone watching the WSOP. Compromise: the section can probably be drastically shortened, possibly to as little as a few paragraphs that would tell a casual observer why a particular bid would be made/challenged.
That's more like it :) LeeVJ (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rules for PotC[edit]

According to a bid of "five fours" is allowed to follow a bid of "four fives" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some probablistic nitpicking[edit]

I removed the claim:

Bids higher than the expected quantity become exponentially unlikely; the chances of 60% of the dice in play having any one value are less than 1 in 10,000.

Since it is false. The said chances depend on the number of dice and can be significantly larger. I'm also not sure in what sense the change in odds is "exponential". However, I do not know where the 60% figure comes from, so I suspect something true and interesting might have been intended... Instead I wrote in some example odds for the case of 15 dice. TIARABAMUN (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, does the term "expected quantity" (under Elements of Common Hand Strategy) has some commonly accepted meaning in this context, or is it just defined ad-hoc for this article? The definition here, "the quantity of any face value that has the highest probability of being present", (i.e., the mode of the appropriate binomial distribution) is problematic, since it is not in general unique (it is unique when n \not\equiv 5 \pmod{6} where n is the number of dice in play). Under Basic Dice Odds a different definition is given, coinciding with the probablistic expectancy. TIARABAMUN (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And its played in Larry 7[edit]

Since the game Red Redemption is mentioned in the article, Larry 7 should also be mentioned. Even the demo for Larry 7 only contained Liars Dice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

who opens the bid after a challenge?[edit]

I cannot find anywhere who opens the bid after a challenge. Is it the winner of the challenge or does it go clockwise or counter clockwise? (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Call my bluff[edit]

Is there any evidence that this game is known to any extent as "Call my bluff"? I see no mention of this in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not that hard research, Pat. Browse through searches like this, or this. Find connections like this (search the text there for "call my bluff"). And this, where the text includes this (my underlining):

This game has assumed many different names and variations Call My Bluff, Bluff, Perudo, Liars Dice and probably several other names I dont even know. I have even played Liars poker, which is the same concept only with cards. There is only one reason variations of this game are known worldwide and have withstood the test of time its a lot of fun! I just recently picked up a copy of Liars Dice and within 10 minutes of opening the box I had read the rules and we were playing. ...

Given the "folk" nature of these games, it is not surprising that one game can have many names. Hence the need for DAB pages and redirects to sort out as much of the complexity as an encyclopedia reasonably can, and to retain adequate precision in titles, especially where this is easy to achieve without costs.
Readers here may be interested in the current RM at Talk:Call My Bluff (UK game show), which prompts Pat to raise this question here, I think.
NoeticaTea? 12:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC) ☺


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Liar's diceLiar's Dice

  • proper noun capitalisation (over redirect) emerson7 01:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Generic game titles aren't proper nouns. That capitalization would only be appropriate for a proprietary name, like Connect Four or Guess Who?. See Chinese checkers. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BDD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Added two variants that are related to the first one[edit]

  • If played with the above variant, the player who made the last bid may count aloud from 1 to 10. If he reaches 10 with no one challenging or increasing the bid, the round ends with that player earning back a die. A player may have more than 5 dice that way, and any player who reaches 10 dice that way wins the game.
  • With the above mentioned variants, some players may stay quiet and win easily. To avoid that, the following rule may be added: Each time a player loses a challenge, he loses a die normally, but the two players sitting to his left and right lose a die as well (unless one of them was the player to win the challenge). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this all just original research? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


I've seen both South American and occasionally Chinese origins, generally fairly early, claimed for one or more games in the liar's dice family. Some people even use language like "historical records show" about its history. But I haven't found any citations to such records - in fact, I haven't yet turned up even a reference to any game in the family prior, nor any assertion with actual citations that any such game is known to have been played at any particular point, even as much as 50 years ago, let alone 500. (I haven't even found anybody in the 1970s claiming to have played as a kid or anything.) Admittedly, I haven't bothered to search for such outside of googling relevant terms and searching for "perudo" and "liar's dice" on Google Scholar (which results in precisely zero citations in history journals but a lot of really cool stuff about AI), so I'm quite ready to believe the evidence is out there.

Wikipedia currently follows the custom of asserting that the game was introduced to the Conquistadors by indigenous South American peoples, which would be quite the feat given that there are not to my knowledge any finds suggesting the existence of dice in the pre-Columbian New World. (This of course doesn't stop the game from being a result of contact between the cultures, which in fact seems entirely plausible - but, of course, no better sourced than any of the various claims I have seen about 18th century pirates.)

I'm deleting this sentence, but would be excited to see it come back with a citation, especially a reliable one. Does anybody have any evidence to point to suggesting the game is of anywhere near the age often claimed for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teucer (talkcontribs) 19:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)