RnG is ruining this game

[Koros]

No, what you are doing is just gambler’s fallacy.

Gambler's fallacy is believing that P(X_n+1 | sum of X_1, X_2, X_3, ... X_n /n < some "small" number (i.e. unlucky)) > P(X)

What ijuakos is saying that P(sum of X_1, ... X_n / n = 0) is very very low, in fact it is 0.0000265614.

If you have a one-sided hypothesis test where H_0: p = 0.1 and H_A: p < 0.1, you will unequivocally reject the null (unless you're working in particle physics).

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i...+and+p+%3D+0.1

Please don't talk about statistics as a layman, thank you, it's incredibly embarrassing.

Although what ijuakos is saying is largely irrelevant to the conversation, it is really sad to see the failure of American education in action when people spout their mouth about "gambler's fallacy" or "correlation =/= causation" without knowing elementary probability theory that they teach in middle school in actual good countries.

statistically possible

Have you ever read any paper, research, ... anything at all? Do you realize every paper's result is statistically possible to be false? What is this pedantic nonsense

This is not a research paper mate. you did the math on a hypothetical for 1 persons rng experience. Where it is statistically possible for it to happen to 1 person, you would need more than 1 sample for this to mean anything on your end.

oh my god please stop i'm actually cringing so hard right now, (1): in that example there are actually 100 samples; (2): a high level of statistical significance can be achieved with low N, especially when the data is extreme compared to H_0.

please just look at how it's supposed to be done:
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bhiksha/cour...Bernoulli.html
did you realize that you can be 98% confident with only 9 samples/trials if the data is that extreme? shocker!!!

literally please stop trying to argue with me until you get a phd in stats, you're lowering the ambient iq

FYI: I'm not saying that the RNG is wrong or biased. I'm just saying if such an example existed then there's a high chance something's off.

And if you continue to repeat the nonsense about "statistically possible" I want you to forget about literally everything you learned in chemistry, biology, economics, and really anything other than particle physics (since they go for 5 sigma) because almost all of them report results with p-values above 0.0000266

[Thurmnmurmn]

Have you ever read any paper, research, ... anything at all? Do you realize every paper's result is statistically possible to be false? What is this pedantic nonsense

This is not a research paper mate. you did the math on a hypothetical for 1 persons rng experience. Where it is statistically possible for it to happen to 1 person, you would need more than 1 sample for this to mean anything on your end. Hence why I quoted teamcraft as a much larger stat and actual real evidence (only if you "include misses" fish).

Here's a real example. I was trying to catch a fish that was essentially 50% success rate for a mooch (it was like 47.8%, just rounding up for simplicity). I got the wrong fish 8 times in a row. I later got the right one a bunch for it to even itself out but if you focus on JUST the unlucky stretch then it looks like HORRIBLE RNG https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i...+and+p+%3D+0.5.

Point is, RNG can be a bitch. Doesn't mean its bad RNG.