doubles in Castles of burgundy

[mizzou95]

oh, i'm chilled out. i actually am proud of the fact that my double rate is 1 in 750000 chance of happening and i'm still at a 300 ETO. I'm at the point where it is actually a game now to see how high my doubles rate can go in a game that clearly is a disadvantage to rolling doubles, while maintaining or increasing my ELO. Fun! BTW, my rate since my last post has gone to 17.34%, which take 3900 games X 25 rolls a game is approaching 90000 rolls. The chance of rolling 17.34% or more doubles on 90,000 rolls of two standard six-sided dice is approximately 3.56 × 10⁻⁸, which translates to about 1 in 28,089,887 (or a 0.00000356% chance). Because the sample size is incredibly large, the results tightly cluster around the statistical average, making a deviation this high exceptionally rare.

You may or may not understand that. Sounds as if you may need a course in stats.

Since I posted about a month ago, my doubles % in COB has actually gotten WORSE! I now have a 17.25% double rate over almost 90000 rolls in 3900 games. Statistically the chance of this is beyond ridiculous and is costing me a lot of games. I realize there are streaks of bad luck but COME ON. The actual statistical chance is 1 in 628259, or .000157%. Come on Dave, gimme a break...

Chill out.

First of all, you cannot possibly know that you have a double rate of 17.25 % over 3900 games. When you view your stats, it only shows the average stats of your most recent 500 games.

Second, that fact alone could explain some of the unusual numbers. People are thinking "Oh, these are my stats in ten thousand games, and the probability of this occurring over a stretch of ten thousand games is 0.00000000000000000001 % .... "

[BarnardsStar]

oh, i'm chilled out. i actually am proud of the fact that my double rate is 1 in 750000 chance of happening and i'm still at a 300 ETO. I'm at the point where it is actually a game now to see how high my doubles rate can go in a game that clearly is a disadvantage to rolling doubles, while maintaining or increasing my ELO. Fun! BTW, my rate since my last post has gone to 17.34%, which take 3900 games X 25 rolls a game is approaching 90000 rolls. The chance of rolling 17.34% or more doubles on 90,000 rolls of two standard six-sided dice is approximately 3.56 × 10⁻⁸, which translates to about 1 in 28,089,887 (or a 0.00000356% chance). Because the sample size is incredibly large, the results tightly cluster around the statistical average, making a deviation this high exceptionally rare.

I feel like you skipped a lot of the discussion on this post.

The statistics only cover the last 500 games, so you got 17.34% doubles on 12,500 rolls, not 90k. And the odds of that are 2.3% (not 1 in 750k) for any given player, of which there are thousands and ergo this is pretty much a certainty for somebody. It happens to be you.

[FrankJones]

You may or may not understand that. Sounds as if you may need a course in stats.

You, might need a course in actually reading the post to which you are replying and even quoted in your reply.

I'm quite sure I do not need "a course" in stats. I took many such courses en route to becoming the only person in my cohort at a large university to pass the actuarial exam, which I not only passed, but passed with a significantly higher score than the passing score required.

[FrankJones]

You may or may not understand that. Sounds as if you may need a course in stats.

Consider the irony.

You think I need a course in statistics, yet,

You actually think it's possible that in a span of a few days, the probability of your lifetime doubles percentage went from 1 in 628259 to 1 in 28 million.

[FrankJones]

You may or may not understand that. Sounds as if you may need a course in stats.

Speaking of stats. Why are you saying "3900 games"? Your profile shows you have played 3658 games of CoB.

Maybe you should look at the other statistics (ones you actually have control over) and observe the highly significant differences between your results and winners' results. In several categories, you seem to be doing far worse than the winners' average.

Those statistics, not some imaginary rigged dice, are likely why you are stuck in the mid 250s Elo in a game with an Elo ceiling over 850.

(By the way, that's really not the flex you seem to think it is. Just saying. No offense intended. )

[mizzou95]

I didn't say it, I typed in the number of rolls and chance of 17.35% doubles or more and it came out 1 in 28 million ( or whatever, close to that number I don't recall exactly and you seem to be wanting the numbers to be exact when it doesn't really matter if it's 1 in 10 million or 628million. point is it's almost a zero chance). You, as an actuary, understand that, right? That it's such a huge number with over 6 standard deviations from the mean as to be absurd to be talking about 3900 games or 3658 games or whatever. lol. I'm thinking in broad terms here - just throwing out that I felt the dice randomized seems off.
i guess my question to you would be: At what point do you think it is a problem? 1 in a million? 1 in a billion? 1 in a trillion? I'm just curious as to what it would take for you to think it's a good sample size and the numbers would make you go, "Wait a minute.... a be be be be a what's up doc?"

You may or may not understand that. Sounds as if you may need a course in stats.

Speaking of stats. Why are you saying "3900 games"? Your profile shows you have played 3658 games of CoB.

Maybe you should look at the other statistics (ones you actually have control over) and observe the highly significant differences between your results and winners' results. In several categories, you seem to be doing far worse than the winners' average.

Those statistics, not some imaginary rigged dice, are likely why you are stuck in the mid 250s Elo in a game with an Elo ceiling over 850.

(By the way, that's really not the flex you seem to think it is. Just saying. No offense intended. )

[FrankJones]

You, as an actuary, understand that, right? That it's such a huge number with over 6 standard deviations from the mean as to be absurd to be talking about 3900 games or 3658 games or whatever.

Are you intentionally ignoring what people have said numerous times?

There is no reason for you to be using 3900 games (or any number close to 3900), because the stats on your page only track the last 500 games.

This has been said repeatedly by multiple members of the forum.

One member, I think it was BarnardsStar, even explained exactly what the math would be for the actual value of 500 that represents the number of games your BGA displayed stats represents.

I HOPE THAT HELPS CLARIFY THE SITUATION FOR YOU.

[FrankJones]

i guess my question to you would be: At what point do you think it is a problem? 1 in a million? 1 in a billion? 1 in a trillion? I'm just curious as to what it would take for you to think it's a good sample size and the numbers would make you go, "Wait a minute.... a be be be be a what's up doc?"

I evaluate it on a case by case basis.

A player hitting doubled at a 17.34% rate over 500 games - no, that doesn't qualify for me as "Oh, the RNG is obviously broken",

ESPECIALLY considering there are multiple different known issues with the stats logging of BGA games.

(Emphasizing this because this has also been said probably half a dozen times in this thread.)

[FrankJones]

BarnardsStar actually did all the work for you, and the actual probability of what happened during your last 500 games is approximately 1 out of 43.

If/when we get to the "1 in 28 million" you keep talking about, then we can resume the conversation.

[mizzou95]

Wow, I was trying to be funny and it went straight over your head. Just forget it dude... I mean, this means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, and you are obviously butt hurt. Sorry I blew your actuarial mind and you went off writing 6 or 8 posts. BTW, if the stats on BGA are only for 500 games, then by your reasoning - WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF LISTING THE STATS AT ALL, AS THEY WOULD REALLY MEAN NOTHING. (I'm not convinced it's only the last 500 games, but someone on the internet said so - so it must be right... Right?

BarnardsStar actually did all the work for you, and the actual probability of what happened during your last 500 games is approximately 1 out of 43.

If/when we get to the "1 in 28 million" you keep talking about, then we can resume the conversation.