Supernatural bad luck?

[SluggerBaloney]

Deleted

[bananasplay]

Babylon is my last favorite Wonder card to be. It just doesn't match up with my play style, I always lose, and I don't enjoy playing.

Played one game, and of course, get Babylon. With 7 wonder cards, the odds of getting any individual card is 14%
I lose, and play again. I get Babylon again. This is .14 * .14 = .019, so about a 2% chance.
I lose, and play again. I get Babylon again. This is .14 * .14 * 14 = .0027. That's about a 3 in a THOUSAND chance I just hit.
I lose, and play again. I get Babylon again. This is .14 * .14 * .14 * .14 = .00038. That's about a 4 in TEN THOUSAND chance.

That simply should not happen

By your own calculations, shouldn't it happen roughly 4 times out of every 10,000 games?

Supernatural? No. Bad luck? Sure.

As for your "play style", instead of being rigidly tied to a way you prefer to play, why not be open to adjusting how you play in order to improve your chances in a given scenario? In 7 Wonders as in other games, I've been forced to ask myself if my preferred way of playing is simply holding me back in certain circumstances. I definitely default to a certain way of playing in some games, but if that way of playing is not serving the ultimate goal of victory, then my choice is to adjust or resign myself to playing "my way" in a losing cause.

[frogstar_A]

Babylon is my last favorite Wonder card to be. It just doesn't match up with my play style, I always lose, and I don't enjoy playing.

Played one game, and of course, get Babylon. With 7 wonder cards, the odds of getting any individual card is 14%
I lose, and play again. I get Babylon again. This is .14 * .14 = .019, so about a 2% chance.
I lose, and play again. I get Babylon again. This is .14 * .14 * 14 = .0027. That's about a 3 in a THOUSAND chance I just hit.
I lose, and play again. I get Babylon again. This is .14 * .14 * .14 * .14 = .00038. That's about a 4 in TEN THOUSAND chance.

That simply should not happen

BGA says around 5.9 million games of 7 wonders have been played so far.

That means it should have happened over 2,000 times already that someone gets ggeir least favourite wonder 4 times in a row.

[SluggerBaloney]

Deleted

[Romain672]

You are just remembering wrongly (or lieing in purpose, which is worst).
The max you got in your 10 last game is three babylon in a row.
Then you got another wonder, then another babylon, then i think two others wonders, then babylon.

It's way more likely to have all that.

(for those who check, be careful, one game with babylon was abandonned)

[dschingis27]

Who would have guessed that this "supernatural" story is actually made up.

[Romain672]

I just did 100 simulations of 514 rolls of wonders and I counted the number maximal of Babylon wonder they got in 10 games at any of the 505 group of 10. Here is the results:
- 1 of them got only 3 babylons at max, which look really surprising*
- 29 of them got 4 babylons at max
- 48 of them got 5 babylons, like you
- 18 of them got 6 babylons
- and 4 of them got 7 babylons

So yeah... 5 babylons is totally in the range. Feel free to see if you can break that 6 babylons on 10 games or not.

*(he still got 62 babylons/514 while the average is 73, and the lowest is 58, guess his babylons are reparted evenly, while that 58 got 5 babylons in 10 games... I guess those numbers aren't related much )

[frogstar_A]

Sigh

There’s a post like this every day on BGA - I got a 1 in a bazillion chance event happen! The websites terrible! It’s rigged! Etc

And yet of course with users all round the world playing a bazillion games in total every day then yes, someone will have a 1 in a bazillion chance event happen to them every day.

Unusual good luck 1 in a bazillion things happen too of course - I won 14 games of Yahtzee in a row last year - but of course they don’t make people angry so you don’t hear about them in forums…

[Een]

What looks like supernatural bad luck to me is that it seems to be very often the same users posting about this. That must be terribly biased and not random at all... *shrug*

On a more interesting note, better random is on the way https://www.zx2c4.com/projects/linux-rng-5.17-5.18/ (but that probably won't change a bit the probability of rants about randomness in the forums).

[RicardoRix]

On a more interesting note, better random is on the way https://www.zx2c4.com/projects/linux-rng-5.17-5.18/ (but that probably won't change a bit the probability of rants about randomness in the forums).

Will the bga_rand() function use this new upgrade?