I took that into account. I took game dated as 'one day ago' when I wrote my post, and the last game were one of the 98%, so it seems it was the games you wanted.Ze Monstah wrote: ↑14 April 2021, 05:50By "last 10 games" i meant the moment I wrote that text.
It was way weirder then, and it repeats frequently.
10 games are surely not enough for analysing doubles...
You ignored all the other part of my post.Ze Monstah wrote: ↑14 April 2021, 19:34Thanks for letting me know...
I really needed that value of yours, on my comments.
Good luck in your camps.
You got something ordinally, which you though was unlikely. I don't know what to add to that.
edit: I even forget to remove half of the occurences of the value. So the probabilities became:
{6>54, 7>48, 7>51, 10>63, 5>44, 10>33, 3>22, 6>37, 5>34, 11>38}
14%, 37%, 30%, 45%, 18%, 97.3%, 38%, 49%, 40%, 97.0%
So from two probabilities of 98% we goes down to 97%, which is a big difference.
These numbers represent how far from the average were the number of doubles. If it's close to 0%, that mean there were really few double. If it's close to 50%, we are exactly to what you expect. If it's close to 100%, that mean there was a lot of doubles. And more it's close to which value, more the generation is weird.
Two 97% isn't weird.
Per example a '8>37' (=8doubles for 37 rolls) has value of 79%. 9 is 89%. 10 is 94.4%. 11 is 97.6%. 12 is 99.04%. 13 is 99.66%. 14 is 99.89%. 15 is 99.96%.
That means accross all generations of 37 rolls, there will be about 0.04% of generation which will have 15 or more doubles.
I'm starting to be more aggressive but meh, I'm much more confident I'm right so meh