What makes WHM special? Nothing anymore.

[J-Dax]

You're making 2 different comparison here.


First a simplified lottery example cause it's the easiest to explain (this isnt how AST works btw:
Let's say if put 10 marbles into a bag and one if them is red. If you draw the red marble you win, if you dont, you get to keep the marble. Since the marbles don't go back into the bag, if you played 10 times you would absolutely win.

AST doesnt work like that though. A simple comparison to AST RNG would be more like: You flip a coin 2 times, what is the chance of it landing on heads once? You determine this by first finding all possible outcomes (this is very comparable to the ast example i gave you because if you want 1 of 3 cards in a deck of 6 i.e. 3/6 = 1/2):
Heads, Heads
Heads, Tails
Tails, Heads
Tails, Tails

^ There are 3 combinations out of 4 possible that hit heads at least once. 3/4 is a 75% chance.

Thats not how the lottery works btw and its called a gamblers fallacy.
AST cards work in a similiar manner just smaller number pool. You have a 1 in 6 chance of drawing a card, period. Each draw is its own separate event, giving you the same chance of pulling a particular card.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

[winsock]

Thats not how the lottery works btw and its called a gamblers fallacy.
AST cards work in a similiar manner just smaller number pool. You have a 1 in 6 chance of drawing a card, period. Each draw is its own separate event, giving you the same chance of pulling a particular card.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

That is not the Gambler Fallacy.
The gambler fallacy would be like: "I drew Spire 3 times in a row, so the next one cant be Spire" or "I drew Spire 3 times in a row, so the next one will be Spire"

Gambler fallacy applies to the lottery when ppl say numbers like 1,2,3,4,5 has less of a chance to win vs something like 23,54,78,65,12

Just a quick example to show you why these are different. Flip a coin 10 times, if heads lands at least once, you win, if it never appears you lose. See how many times you can flip the coin in a set of 10, without it landing on heads once. By you're logic, about half of your sets of 10s will be all tails. This will not be the case.

[J-Dax]

That is not the Gambler Fallacy.
The gambler fallacy would be like: "I drew Spire 3 times in a row, so the next one cant be Spire" or "I drew Spire 3 times in a row, so the next one will be Spire"

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e., independent trials of a random process),

The idea that the lottery works like drawing marbles out of a bag until you win is a gamblers fallacy.

The point is if it is truly random, then probability doesn't change between draws as long as each individual draw maintains the same amount of possible outcomes.
The chance of drawing spire is 1 in 6. If I shuffle its still only 1 in 6. Drawing more than once does not effect this unless shuffle removes the possibility of drawing spire again.

[winsock]

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e., independent trials of a random process),

The idea that drawing more than once increases or decreases the likely hood of an outcome is gamblers fallacy.

Lol this is not the gambler fallacy.
Flip a coin in sets of 10.
Count how many sets where heads appears at least once.
Count how many times you get an entire set of tails.
by your logic they should be 50/50. but that is not the case

There is only one possible outcome for "TTTTTTTTTT" but there are several possible outcomes that contain at least 1 head, each possible outcome has an equal chance of appearing, but there are more outcomes that contain at least 1 H

[EinherjarLucian]

Lol this is not the gambler fallacy.
Flip a coin in sets of 10.
Count how many sets where heads appears at least once.
Count how many times you get an entire set of tails.
by your logic they should be 50/50. but that is not the case

There is only one possible outcome for "TTTTTTTTTT" but there are several possible outcomes that contain at least 1 head, each possible outcome has an equal chance of appearing, but there are more outcomes that contain at least 1 H

You could roll 100 tails at once, though. The chance of rolling Tails again on your next roll is still 50%. Thinking otherwise is Gambler's Fallacy.

[winsock]

You could roll 100 tails at once, though. The chance of rolling Tails again on your next roll is still 50%. Thinking otherwise is Gambler's Fallacy.

You do not understand how probability works...

[J-Dax]

Lol this is not the gambler fallacy.
Flip a coin in sets of 10.
Count how many sets where heads appears at least once.
Count how many times you get an entire set of tails.
by your logic they should be 50/50. but that is not the case

This is the case each flip is its own separate event, previous or subsequent flips do not effect outcomes. When you flip the coin once, you have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. The next flip is also a 50/50 chance of getting heads, weather you had heads before or not.

[winsock]

This is the case each flip is its own separate event, previous or subsequent flips do not effect outcomes. When you flip the coin once, you have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. The next flip is also a 50/50 chance of getting heads, weather you had heads before or not.

The previous flips to not impact subsequent outcomes. This is true. But you're looking at the chance of something occurring within a certain number of attempts
To simplify, let's say AST flips coins. For an encounter, you only have time to flip your coin 3 times. Your possible flips for the encounter are:
HHH
HHT
HTH
HTT
THH
THT
TTH
TTT

There is an equal chance for any of the above combinations to be the combination you get during the run. "TTT" has the same chance of appearing as "HTH" or "THT" or "HHH". However, there are 7 outcomes that would allow you to get at least 1 H during the encounter. 7/8 outcomes means you have a 87.5% chance of getting at least 1 H over the course of 3 flips.

[J-Dax]

The previous flips to not impact subsequent outcomes. This is true. But you're looking at the chance of something occurring within a certain number of attempts
To simplify, let's say AST flips coins. For an encounter, you only have time to flip your coin 3 times. Your possible flips for the encounter are:
HHH
HHT
HTH
HTT
THH
THT
TTH
TTT

There is an equal chance for any of the above combinations to be the combination you get during the run. "TTT" the same chance of appearing as "HTH" or "THT" or "HHH". However, there are 7 outcomes that would allow you to get at least 1 H during the encounter. 7/8 outcomes means you have a 87.5% chance of getting at least 1 H over the course of 3 draws.

Here are the probabilities.
Three cards are favorable, three cards aren't. For simplification we will equate favorable to heads and unfavorable to tails.

The probability of getting heads in three attempts is 85%. The inverse must also be true meaning the probability of getting tails is also 85% It is just as likely that after three attempts I will pull a favorable outcome as it is I will pull an unfavorable one or 50/50.


This all still is off the original topic.