Talk:Surly gambler - Revision history

Hoyifung04: /* Playing card drop rate */ update

2012-08-16T01:08:33Z

Playing card drop rate: update

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:08, 16 August 2012
Line 32:		Line 32:
	----		----
	<pre>		<pre>
	surly gambler ~~298~~		surly gambler 563
	playing card (1) 67		playing card (1) 128
	playing card (2) 8		playing card (2) 23
	playing card (3) 0		playing card (3) 0
	</pre>		</pre>
Line 42:		Line 42:
	! !! No drops !! One drop !! Two drops !! Three drops		! !! No drops !! One drop !! Two drops !! Three drops
	\|-		\|-
	\| Observed \|\| {{statrate\|~~298~~\|~~223~~\|+}}% \|\| {{statrate\|~~298~~\|67\|+}}% \|\| {{statrate\|~~298~~\|8\|+}}% \|\| {{statrate\|~~298~~\|0\|+}}%		\| Observed \|\| {{statrate\|563\|412\|+}}% \|\| {{statrate\|563\|128\|+}}% \|\| {{statrate\|563\|23\|+}}% \|\| {{statrate\|563\|0\|+}}%
	\|-		\|-
	\| Predicted (10%)		\| Predicted (10%)
Line 50:		Line 50:
	\| {{#expr:0.100.100.10*100 round 1}}%		\| {{#expr:0.100.100.10*100 round 1}}%
	\|}		\|}
	--[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 14:11, ~~31 July~~ 2012 (PDT)		--[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 18:08, 15 August 2012 (PDT)

Hoyifung04: /* Playing card drop rate */ more data

2012-07-31T21:11:42Z

Playing card drop rate: more data

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:11, 31 July 2012
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:::Also, the stats for 3 drops is just for completeness. --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 15:25, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		:::Also, the stats for 3 drops is just for completeness. --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 15:25, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
	:::: I submit lol, University clearly dulled my brain as I feared o.O [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 16:07, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		:::: I submit lol, University clearly dulled my brain as I feared o.O [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 16:07, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
			----
			<pre>
			surly gambler 298
			playing card (1) 67
			playing card (2) 8
			playing card (3) 0
			</pre>

			{\| cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" border="1" align="center" style="text-align:center"
			\|-
			! !! No drops !! One drop !! Two drops !! Three drops
			\|-
			\| Observed \|\| {{statrate\|298\|223\|+}}% \|\| {{statrate\|298\|67\|+}}% \|\| {{statrate\|298\|8\|+}}% \|\| {{statrate\|298\|0\|+}}%
			\|-
			\| Predicted (10%)
			\| {{#expr: (1-0.10)(1-0.10)(1-0.10)*100 round 1}}%
			\| {{#expr: 30.10(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}%
			\| {{#expr: 30.100.10(1-0.10)100 round 1}}%
			\| {{#expr:0.100.100.10*100 round 1}}%
			\|}
			--[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 14:11, 31 July 2012 (PDT)

Patojonas: indeed

2012-07-23T23:07:42Z

indeed

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 23 July 2012
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Ohh, nice box :P		Ohh, nice box :P

	Anyway, 44/183={{statrate\|183\|44}} => 0.240.240.76 (chance of 2, assuming independent odds) =~4.37% \| observed chance of 2 => 6/183=~3.2%.		Anyway, 44/183={{statrate\|183\|44}} <del>=> 0.240.240.76 (chance of 2, assuming independent odds) =~4.37%</del> \| observed chance of 2 => 6/183=~3.2%.

	Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:::Wouldn't it have a 3* in the formula? Because it's <code>(#1 drops)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 drops)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 drops)</code>, or, since we're assuming all three have the same rate, <code>3*(drops)(DOESN'T drop)(DOESN'T drop)</code>. In addition, without multiplying by three, there's only 63.5% covered... where did the other 36.5% go? With the multiplication by 3, there's 100% over the four outcomes. Also, if I'm reading correctly, then the chance of something happening in a {{wikipedia\|binomial distribution}} is <code>C(n,k)p<sup>k</sup>(1-p)<sup>n-k</sup></code>, and C(3,1) = C(3,2) = 3.		:::Wouldn't it have a 3* in the formula? Because it's <code>(#1 drops)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 drops)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 drops)</code>, or, since we're assuming all three have the same rate, <code>3*(drops)(DOESN'T drop)(DOESN'T drop)</code>. In addition, without multiplying by three, there's only 63.5% covered... where did the other 36.5% go? With the multiplication by 3, there's 100% over the four outcomes. Also, if I'm reading correctly, then the chance of something happening in a {{wikipedia\|binomial distribution}} is <code>C(n,k)p<sup>k</sup>(1-p)<sup>n-k</sup></code>, and C(3,1) = C(3,2) = 3.
	:::Also, the stats for 3 drops is just for completeness. --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 15:25, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		:::Also, the stats for 3 drops is just for completeness. --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 15:25, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
			:::: I submit lol, University clearly dulled my brain as I feared o.O [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 16:07, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

Hoyifung04: 3* should be right

2012-07-23T22:25:35Z

3* should be right

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 23 July 2012
Line 22:		Line 22:
	Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

	:Pretty sure you can't actually get 24% that way, but using that value, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.24)(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of no cards dropping, a {{#expr: 0.24(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 0.240.24(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.240.240.24100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping.		:Pretty sure you can't actually get 24% that way, but using that value, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.24)(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of no cards dropping, a {{#expr: 30.24(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.240.24(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.240.240.24100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping.
	:Current rates are {{statrate\|183\|139\|+}}% for no cards dropping, {{statrate\|183\|38\|+}}% for exactly 1 dropping, {{statrate\|183\|6\|+}}% for exactly 2 dropping, and {{statrate\|183\|0\|+}}% for exactly 3 dropping.		:Current rates are {{statrate\|183\|139\|+}}% for no cards dropping, {{statrate\|183\|38\|+}}% for exactly 1 dropping, {{statrate\|183\|6\|+}}% for exactly 2 dropping, and {{statrate\|183\|0\|+}}% for exactly 3 dropping.
	:At, say, a 10% drop rate, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.10)(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, a {{#expr: 30.10(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.100.10(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.100.100.10100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping. This is closer, but still not quite the same as the data. In any case, I agree with one part of your conclusion: 200 is too small a sample.		:At, say, a 10% drop rate, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.10)(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, a {{#expr: 30.10(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.100.10(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.100.100.10100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping. This is closer, but still not quite the same as the data. In any case, I agree with one part of your conclusion: 200 is too small a sample.
	:Of course, all this is assuming the drop rate for each card is the same. If it isn't, that'll be a lot of "fun".... --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 13:19, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		:Of course, all this is assuming the drop rate for each card is the same. If it isn't, that'll be a lot of "fun".... --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 13:19, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
	::Hope you don't mind, but I fixed your formulas on the first line, there was a 3* in the 1 and 2 drops that was messing the values.<br>If you check now, you'll see that the theoretical values assuming 24 are within or very close to the experimental data you obtained (except for the no drops case, a small change in the numbers influences that one too much).<br>Also, no point in doing statistics for the 3 drops when you haven't observed any occurrences ;) [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 14:03, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		::Hope you don't mind, but I fixed your formulas on the first line, there was a 3* in the 1 and 2 drops that was messing the values.<br>If you check now, you'll see that the theoretical values assuming 24 are within or very close to the experimental data you obtained (except for the no drops case, a small change in the numbers influences that one too much).<br>Also, no point in doing statistics for the 3 drops when you haven't observed any occurrences ;) [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 14:03, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
			:::Wouldn't it have a 3* in the formula? Because it's <code>(#1 drops)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 drops)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 drops)</code>, or, since we're assuming all three have the same rate, <code>3*(drops)(DOESN'T drop)(DOESN'T drop)</code>. In addition, without multiplying by three, there's only 63.5% covered... where did the other 36.5% go? With the multiplication by 3, there's 100% over the four outcomes. Also, if I'm reading correctly, then the chance of something happening in a {{wikipedia\|binomial distribution}} is <code>C(n,k)p<sup>k</sup>(1-p)<sup>n-k</sup></code>, and C(3,1) = C(3,2) = 3.
			:::Also, the stats for 3 drops is just for completeness. --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 15:25, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

Patojonas: I knew they looked strange

2012-07-23T21:03:08Z

I knew they looked strange

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 23 July 2012
Line 22:		Line 22:
	Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

	:Pretty sure you can't actually get 24% that way, but using that value, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.24)(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of no cards dropping, a {{#expr: 30.24(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.240.24(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.240.240.24100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping.		:Pretty sure you can't actually get 24% that way, but using that value, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.24)(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of no cards dropping, a {{#expr: 0.24(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 0.240.24(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.240.240.24100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping.
	:Current rates are {{statrate\|183\|139\|+}}% for no cards dropping, {{statrate\|183\|38\|+}}% for exactly 1 dropping, {{statrate\|183\|6\|+}}% for exactly 2 dropping, and {{statrate\|183\|0\|+}}% for exactly 3 dropping.		:Current rates are {{statrate\|183\|139\|+}}% for no cards dropping, {{statrate\|183\|38\|+}}% for exactly 1 dropping, {{statrate\|183\|6\|+}}% for exactly 2 dropping, and {{statrate\|183\|0\|+}}% for exactly 3 dropping.
	:At, say, a 10% drop rate, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.10)(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, a {{#expr: 30.10(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.100.10(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.100.100.10100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping. This is closer, but still not quite the same as the data. In any case, I agree with one part of your conclusion: 200 is too small a sample.		:At, say, a 10% drop rate, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.10)(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, a {{#expr: 30.10(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.100.10(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.100.100.10100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping. This is closer, but still not quite the same as the data. In any case, I agree with one part of your conclusion: 200 is too small a sample.
	:Of course, all this is assuming the drop rate for each card is the same. If it isn't, that'll be a lot of "fun".... --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 13:19, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		:Of course, all this is assuming the drop rate for each card is the same. If it isn't, that'll be a lot of "fun".... --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 13:19, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
			::Hope you don't mind, but I fixed your formulas on the first line, there was a 3* in the 1 and 2 drops that was messing the values.<br>If you check now, you'll see that the theoretical values assuming 24 are within or very close to the experimental data you obtained (except for the no drops case, a small change in the numbers influences that one too much).<br>Also, no point in doing statistics for the 3 drops when you haven't observed any occurrences ;) [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 14:03, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

Hoyifung04: /* Playing card drop rate */ Not quite....

2012-07-23T20:19:38Z

Playing card drop rate: Not quite....

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:19, 23 July 2012
Line 21:		Line 21:

	Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

			:Pretty sure you can't actually get 24% that way, but using that value, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.24)(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of no cards dropping, a {{#expr: 30.24(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.240.24(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.240.240.24100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping.
			:Current rates are {{statrate\|183\|139\|+}}% for no cards dropping, {{statrate\|183\|38\|+}}% for exactly 1 dropping, {{statrate\|183\|6\|+}}% for exactly 2 dropping, and {{statrate\|183\|0\|+}}% for exactly 3 dropping.
			:At, say, a 10% drop rate, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.10)(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, a {{#expr: 30.10(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.100.10(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.100.100.10100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping. This is closer, but still not quite the same as the data. In any case, I agree with one part of your conclusion: 200 is too small a sample.
			:Of course, all this is assuming the drop rate for each card is the same. If it isn't, that'll be a lot of "fun".... --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 13:19, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

Patojonas: my 2 cents

2012-07-23T19:29:03Z

my 2 cents

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 23 July 2012
Line 13:		Line 13:
	</pre>		</pre>
	If someone is able to extract the drop rate of each playing card, I'd be grateful. In the meantime, I'm going to collect more data. --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 09:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		If someone is able to extract the drop rate of each playing card, I'd be grateful. In the meantime, I'm going to collect more data. --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 09:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

			----

			Ohh, nice box :P

			Anyway, 44/183={{statrate\|183\|44}} => 0.240.240.76 (chance of 2, assuming independent odds) =~4.37% \| observed chance of 2 => 6/183=~3.2%.

			Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

Hoyifung04: /* Playing card drop rate */ new section

2012-07-23T16:29:34Z

Playing card drop rate: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 23 July 2012
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I don't know how to tell the difference between all the types of messages, but this one wasn't on the page. [[User:Usi\|Usi]] 02:39, 30 March 2008 (MST)		I don't know how to tell the difference between all the types of messages, but this one wasn't on the page. [[User:Usi\|Usi]] 02:39, 30 March 2008 (MST)

			== Playing card drop rate ==

			I don't know how to find the probabilities for each playing card, so I'm just going to put my numbers here. Note that each line is exclusively that number (i.e. the "playing card (1)" line means that EXACTLY one playing card dropped).
			<pre>
			surly gambler 183
			playing card (1) 38
			playing card (2) 6
			playing card (3) 0
			</pre>
			If someone is able to extract the drop rate of each playing card, I'd be grateful. In the meantime, I'm going to collect more data. --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 09:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

Usi: New page: "Your opponent attacks ... "Draw," she says. You go for your weapon, but a professional gambler is always better at the draw. She hits you for 3 damage." I don't know how to tell the diff...

2008-03-30T09:39:21Z

New page: "Your opponent attacks ... "Draw," she says. You go for your weapon, but a professional gambler is always better at the draw. She hits you for 3 damage." I don't know how to tell the diff...

New page

"Your opponent attacks ... "Draw," she says. You go for your weapon, but a professional gambler is always better at the draw. She hits you for 3 damage."

I don't know how to tell the difference between all the types of messages, but this one wasn't on the page. [[User:Usi|Usi]] 02:39, 30 March 2008 (MST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 23 July 2012
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Ohh, nice box :P		Ohh, nice box :P

	Anyway, 44/183={{statrate\|183\|44}} => 0.240.240.76 (chance of 2, assuming independent odds) =~4.37% \| observed chance of 2 => 6/183=~3.2%.		Anyway, 44/183={{statrate\|183\|44}} <del>=> 0.240.240.76 (chance of 2, assuming independent odds) =~4.37%</del> \| observed chance of 2 => 6/183=~3.2%.

	Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:::Wouldn't it have a 3* in the formula? Because it's <code>(#1 drops)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 drops)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 drops)</code>, or, since we're assuming all three have the same rate, <code>3*(drops)(DOESN'T drop)(DOESN'T drop)</code>. In addition, without multiplying by three, there's only 63.5% covered... where did the other 36.5% go? With the multiplication by 3, there's 100% over the four outcomes. Also, if I'm reading correctly, then the chance of something happening in a {{wikipedia\|binomial distribution}} is <code>C(n,k)p<sup>k</sup>(1-p)<sup>n-k</sup></code>, and C(3,1) = C(3,2) = 3.		:::Wouldn't it have a 3* in the formula? Because it's <code>(#1 drops)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 drops)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 drops)</code>, or, since we're assuming all three have the same rate, <code>3*(drops)(DOESN'T drop)(DOESN'T drop)</code>. In addition, without multiplying by three, there's only 63.5% covered... where did the other 36.5% go? With the multiplication by 3, there's 100% over the four outcomes. Also, if I'm reading correctly, then the chance of something happening in a {{wikipedia\|binomial distribution}} is <code>C(n,k)p<sup>k</sup>(1-p)<sup>n-k</sup></code>, and C(3,1) = C(3,2) = 3.
	:::Also, the stats for 3 drops is just for completeness. --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 15:25, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		:::Also, the stats for 3 drops is just for completeness. --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 15:25, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
			:::: I submit lol, University clearly dulled my brain as I feared o.O [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 16:07, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 23 July 2012
Line 22:		Line 22:
	Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

	:Pretty sure you can't actually get 24% that way, but using that value, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.24)(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of no cards dropping, a {{#expr: 0.24(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 0.240.24(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.240.240.24100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping.		:Pretty sure you can't actually get 24% that way, but using that value, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.24)(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of no cards dropping, a {{#expr: 30.24(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.240.24(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.240.240.24100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping.
	:Current rates are {{statrate\|183\|139\|+}}% for no cards dropping, {{statrate\|183\|38\|+}}% for exactly 1 dropping, {{statrate\|183\|6\|+}}% for exactly 2 dropping, and {{statrate\|183\|0\|+}}% for exactly 3 dropping.		:Current rates are {{statrate\|183\|139\|+}}% for no cards dropping, {{statrate\|183\|38\|+}}% for exactly 1 dropping, {{statrate\|183\|6\|+}}% for exactly 2 dropping, and {{statrate\|183\|0\|+}}% for exactly 3 dropping.
	:At, say, a 10% drop rate, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.10)(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, a {{#expr: 30.10(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.100.10(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.100.100.10100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping. This is closer, but still not quite the same as the data. In any case, I agree with one part of your conclusion: 200 is too small a sample.		:At, say, a 10% drop rate, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.10)(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, a {{#expr: 30.10(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.100.10(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.100.100.10100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping. This is closer, but still not quite the same as the data. In any case, I agree with one part of your conclusion: 200 is too small a sample.
	:Of course, all this is assuming the drop rate for each card is the same. If it isn't, that'll be a lot of "fun".... --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 13:19, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		:Of course, all this is assuming the drop rate for each card is the same. If it isn't, that'll be a lot of "fun".... --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 13:19, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
	::Hope you don't mind, but I fixed your formulas on the first line, there was a 3* in the 1 and 2 drops that was messing the values.<br>If you check now, you'll see that the theoretical values assuming 24 are within or very close to the experimental data you obtained (except for the no drops case, a small change in the numbers influences that one too much).<br>Also, no point in doing statistics for the 3 drops when you haven't observed any occurrences ;) [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 14:03, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		::Hope you don't mind, but I fixed your formulas on the first line, there was a 3* in the 1 and 2 drops that was messing the values.<br>If you check now, you'll see that the theoretical values assuming 24 are within or very close to the experimental data you obtained (except for the no drops case, a small change in the numbers influences that one too much).<br>Also, no point in doing statistics for the 3 drops when you haven't observed any occurrences ;) [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 14:03, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
			:::Wouldn't it have a 3* in the formula? Because it's <code>(#1 drops)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 drops)(#3 DOESN'T drop) + (#1 DOESN'T drop)(#2 DOESN'T drop)(#3 drops)</code>, or, since we're assuming all three have the same rate, <code>3*(drops)(DOESN'T drop)(DOESN'T drop)</code>. In addition, without multiplying by three, there's only 63.5% covered... where did the other 36.5% go? With the multiplication by 3, there's 100% over the four outcomes. Also, if I'm reading correctly, then the chance of something happening in a {{wikipedia\|binomial distribution}} is <code>C(n,k)p<sup>k</sup>(1-p)<sup>n-k</sup></code>, and C(3,1) = C(3,2) = 3.
			:::Also, the stats for 3 drops is just for completeness. --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 15:25, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 23 July 2012
Line 22:		Line 22:
	Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

	:Pretty sure you can't actually get 24% that way, but using that value, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.24)(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of no cards dropping, a {{#expr: 30.24(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.240.24(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.240.240.24100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping.		:Pretty sure you can't actually get 24% that way, but using that value, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.24)(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of no cards dropping, a {{#expr: 0.24(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 0.240.24(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.240.240.24100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping.
	:Current rates are {{statrate\|183\|139\|+}}% for no cards dropping, {{statrate\|183\|38\|+}}% for exactly 1 dropping, {{statrate\|183\|6\|+}}% for exactly 2 dropping, and {{statrate\|183\|0\|+}}% for exactly 3 dropping.		:Current rates are {{statrate\|183\|139\|+}}% for no cards dropping, {{statrate\|183\|38\|+}}% for exactly 1 dropping, {{statrate\|183\|6\|+}}% for exactly 2 dropping, and {{statrate\|183\|0\|+}}% for exactly 3 dropping.
	:At, say, a 10% drop rate, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.10)(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, a {{#expr: 30.10(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.100.10(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.100.100.10100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping. This is closer, but still not quite the same as the data. In any case, I agree with one part of your conclusion: 200 is too small a sample.		:At, say, a 10% drop rate, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.10)(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, a {{#expr: 30.10(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.100.10(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.100.100.10100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping. This is closer, but still not quite the same as the data. In any case, I agree with one part of your conclusion: 200 is too small a sample.
	:Of course, all this is assuming the drop rate for each card is the same. If it isn't, that'll be a lot of "fun".... --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 13:19, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		:Of course, all this is assuming the drop rate for each card is the same. If it isn't, that'll be a lot of "fun".... --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 13:19, 23 July 2012 (PDT)
			::Hope you don't mind, but I fixed your formulas on the first line, there was a 3* in the 1 and 2 drops that was messing the values.<br>If you check now, you'll see that the theoretical values assuming 24 are within or very close to the experimental data you obtained (except for the no drops case, a small change in the numbers influences that one too much).<br>Also, no point in doing statistics for the 3 drops when you haven't observed any occurrences ;) [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 14:03, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:19, 23 July 2012
Line 21:		Line 21:

	Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)		Conclusion: Unless you can get that 6 to 60 there's too much chance (±6.3% lol) and little statistic.<br>Also, if the chance is indeed 24% statistically you ought to have already seen 2 occurrences of 3 cards together, which proves 200 is still a small sample. [[User:Patojonas\|Patojonas]] 12:29, 23 July 2012 (PDT)

			:Pretty sure you can't actually get 24% that way, but using that value, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.24)(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of no cards dropping, a {{#expr: 30.24(1-0.24)(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.240.24(1-0.24)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.240.240.24100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping.
			:Current rates are {{statrate\|183\|139\|+}}% for no cards dropping, {{statrate\|183\|38\|+}}% for exactly 1 dropping, {{statrate\|183\|6\|+}}% for exactly 2 dropping, and {{statrate\|183\|0\|+}}% for exactly 3 dropping.
			:At, say, a 10% drop rate, there would be a {{#expr: (1-0.10)(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, a {{#expr: 30.10(1-0.10)(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 1 dropping, and a {{#expr: 30.100.10(1-0.10)100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 2 dropping, and a {{#expr:0.100.100.10100 round 1}}% chance of exactly 3 dropping. This is closer, but still not quite the same as the data. In any case, I agree with one part of your conclusion: 200 is too small a sample.
			:Of course, all this is assuming the drop rate for each card is the same. If it isn't, that'll be a lot of "fun".... --[[User:Hoyifung04\|hoyifung04]] 13:19, 23 July 2012 (PDT)