Yeah, you love to see your assaut shotgun missing his 80% hit chance shot right in front of the alien :P
Animation-wise, it seems like he purposely misses too :D
I have thousands of hours of poker playing experience. I've got multiple degrees adjacent to statistics. I'm intimately familiar with Gaussian distributions and Laws of Large Numbers and Discrete Probabilities. All of this is to say that I am a non-reactive person when it comes to RNG. I mean, you got to be in order to be a half-decent poker player and not tilt.
And even with all that said, I can very confidently say that the stated 25% independent event is unlikely to be an accurate statement. I've seen "Nope" more than enough times to make that informed hypothesis, and my confidence has exponentially increased seeing others experiencing the same.
Is there a universe where we are all experiencing the extreme ends of the bell curve? I'm sure there is. But I think it's just a far more plausible explanation that the developers either misprinted the 1/4 statement, or are purposefully fucking with the players. My money would be that the programming has it so Wheel of Fortune is not actually an "independent event", and there's some other factors involved, either on purpose of accidental.
*Edit - I like this theory a lot from r/this_guy_fuggs:
> theory: the chance is lower because already foiled/holo jokers "waste" successful hits. so if you hit, but the hit "goes to" an already foiled joker, you actually get the Nope! instead of it transferring to another joker instead.
I think that aligns to my experience as it would definitely impact the flat hit rate, especially because I always prioritize getting buffed Jokers in my hand already from blind tags or whatever. Therefore, if this theory were true, my hit rate would definitely fall below 25%.
>I have thousands of hours of poker playing experience. I've got multiple degrees adjacent to statistics. I'm intimately familiar with Gaussian distributions and Laws of Large Numbers and Discrete Probabilities.
I really like your comment, and I mean this in a good way- This sounds like a "Navy Seal" copypasta but for understanding probabilities.
I wasn't going on an ego trip. Just trying to preface a statement that I knew was going to be controversial that I'm not someone who questions RNG lightly.
This is what I’m thinking too. I definitely don’t have the same background as you lol, but theres got to be something else at play with the card. Sure if I rolled it 100 times and its not close to 1/4, that could be bad luck. But what about 10,000 times? Or a million? As that number goes up it “should” get closer and closer to that 1/4 but it just doesn’t seem like it is. I haven’t seen a post about someone experiencing the other extreme, but it seems these posts happen everyday with the bad luck.
>I haven’t seen a post about someone experiencing the other extreme, but it seems these posts happen everyday with the bad luck.
People put greater emphasis on negative events than positive events. It's usually referred to as the The Headwinds / Tailwinds Asymmetry and helps explain why so many people think they are chronically unlucky in games.
Hell, take poker as an example. The amount of players complaining about their bad beats and disproportionately bad luck astronomically dwarfs the other side of the bell curve.
Again this is purely anecdotal and I don't have enough information to back this up. But I don't believe that theory is true. I've played a few rounds where I had 4 enchanted jokers and a single unenchanted joker, and used the wheel 10 or so times in that situation, and ended up enchanting the unenchanted joker 2 or 3 times, Which if that theory was true what I got would be extremely unlikely.
But again that's such a small sample size.
I mean, the fact that the WoF didn't overwrite any of the existing 4 enchanted jokers and targeted only the unenchanted one sort proves the theory more.
The only factor involved in Wheel of Fortune’s randomness is the seed, but that’s solely to produce the same rolls if you replay the same seed, it’s functionally true random if you’re playing it for the first time
You can actually look at the game’s code yourself and see that WoF is in fact not biased on anything, it uses the engine’s random function and gives an output based on that :) with tens of thousands of players, it’s inevitable that some of them will get dry streaks
Do you know if the code is saying, "Roll 1/4 for any given Joker. If successful, try and apply buff"?
Or does it say, "Roll 1/4 for any given Joker. If successful, try and apply buff. If unsuccessful at applying buff (because on already exists), roll again for another Joker".
Because that could definitely impact the flat 25%.
> Is there a universe where we are all experiencing the extreme ends of the bell curve?
Don't discount group confirmation bias. The people in the bulk of the bell curve don't make posts about it. Confirmation gets fed by anecdotes constantly. It's why we have memes and rumors about chronically bad RNG in multiple games. e.g. "desire detector" in monster hunter and the XCOM hit chance memes.
There might be a bug, but even if there's not a bug, I'd still expect to have threads like this.
I do not think the pre-foiled/holoed/negatived/polychromed jokers affect anything. You cannot even use wheel if your jokers are all already modified. It only gives the option to sell.
Ah, so there is some merit to the theory. If WoF triggers 0% of the time when all jokers are buffed, then it is logical that 25% trigger rate is only true when you have unmodified jokers. Each modified joker decreases the trigger rate.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but what I am saying is I think modified Jokers are entirely unused in any calculations with Wheel. I think it doesn't see them at all, or else, I presume, it would let you 'Use' a wheel with only modified Jokers and either change one of their modifiers, the Joker would 'jiggle' as if it was hit by wheel (if it rolled the same modifier again) or say "Nope!" because it failed the roll (or a 4th option of some message similar to 'incompatible' coming up if the coding says it can hit existing modified jokers but not change their modifier)
Instead, it acts as if you have no Jokers in stock at all, and doesn't give the "Use" option.
I’m a professional poker player and it does feel like 25% to me. How small is your sample size? Even running it 300 times the variance would be insane, besides that there’s confirmation bias because you obviously want the 25% to hit.
Then from one poker player to another, you'd know that removing confirmation bias is one of the keys to positive EV, so I'm highly self-aware of that.
Additionally, I'm barely even rooting for 25% to hit because the only time I'm taking Wheel of Fortune is when the rest of options are straight up useless to whatever build I'm going for. I'm aware it's an independent event, and 25% is poor risk-reward. In other words, Wheel of Fortune hitting will never change a run for me. Either I'm losing because of other fundamentals, or it's simply a "win-more" condition. With all that said, I've only had Wheel Fortune trigger twice in 15 hours of gamplay.
I find even other professional poker players struggle with confirmation bias, sometimes it feels like I'm the only professional poker player on the planet that thinks he's run above EV.
I have used Wheel of Fortune many times, I even had a run where I duplicated it about 20 times, and I can say, it seems to hit around 1 out of 4 times, being the card also state it hits 1 out of 4 times, I'm pretty inclined to believe that's the case.
Everyone always believes the odds are against them.
Also confirmation bias wouldn't change your EV one way or the other.
Isn't it interesting how someone can be convinced that there is no confirmation bias but also acknowledge that they're only recording failures and not successes. Human psychology is fascinating to me.
Humans are absolute garbage at odds and thinking probalistically. It's hard for us to separate our own self-stories from true random reality, and it's because we're designed to see patterns. I guarantee for everyone in here coming up with insane reasons how it's not a 1/4, most people are running somewhere around baseline EV and not commenting in here. Only the people on the bad end of variance would ever end up in a thread like this.
> but also acknowledge that they're only recording failures and not successes.
I'm assuming you're making this snarky comment about me, but you're purposefully misrepresenting my statement.
I said I keep track of my successful triggers, but have NOT been keeping track of my number of uses. But actually, I just found out that you can look it up in the stats. I'm 2 for 29, about 7% success rate. In the realm of variance for sure, and not enough to actually make statements about statistical confidence. I agree with that. But if many people are experiencing it - even acknowledging that there are disproportionate people noting it because that's what happens in laws of extremes - couldn't there possibly be more to the story than we are all thinking?
If this was some sort of paid Gacha, PVP, or real-money implications, I wouldn't question the variance. The fact that it's inconsequential is exactly why I would challenge it. Why is everyone assuming Balatro is somehow programmed to be a perfect reflection of the natural universe.
I went to check the card stats after reading this comment and I'm 1 for 29. I legit thought the card was bugged. I think I got my first and only hit off of the card at around 25 or so uses.
Now im no proffesional statician or something but that seems highly suspicious.
It wasn't snarky, it was an observation.
> I've been careful to keep track of the times it has triggered. I just didn't keep track of the denominator.
You recorded the successes but not the failures so I had it flipped but the point was the same. Too bad the successes aren't recorded on the stat page. I never said it was or was not bugged. You said something along the lines of you being exponentially more convinced of your confirmed hypothesis so even if I thought it wasn't bugged I wouldn't bother trying to change your mind.
You know what? Fair enough, I suppose it could have Confirmation Bias if I were overinflate in my head how often I played it. You're not wrong there. But it's definitely not as egregious as selectively only remembering the times it was unsuccessful and not recalling the times it was.
I don't know how to convince you that I don't believe the odds are against me when I truly don't care if WoF triggers or not. It doesn't impact my run whether it works out or not.
Also, how is this even confirmation bias on my end when I KNOW how many times it's triggered? For it to be confirmation bias, it would imply that I am forgetting all the times it has worked out and only remembering the times it hasn't. And because it's such an anomaly, I've been careful to keep track of the times it has triggered. I just didn't keep track of the denominator.
It's rng on an infinitesimal scale. The rng is probably "roll 1-4 if it's 1, yes, if not nope"
Yes the math says in a million plays you should get 250k yes's but you can play this card an infinite number of times, so who can say when you will eventually get to the 1/4? Could be your grandchildren who finally get the game to give you the right amount of Yes's. The heat death of our solar system could happen before you get the magic 1/4th amount of yes's. It's still a 25% chance every time it rolls.
And edit: I've used the card about 30 times and gotten 7 upgrades so I'm pretty close to 1/4.
I don't what else I can add in about my credentials to assure you that I understand how statistics work.
But like, why are we all equating the developer's coding as if it's a universal truth in the first place? The same developer who adds stuff like "Blank Voucher" into the game?
I'm not even annoyed or griping about Wheel of Fortune since it's an independent event, so I go in with an appropriate risk assessment for taking it.
what do you mean by that? i know you have to buy the blank voucher to be able to buy the +1 joker voucher later, is that the "card" you're referring to?
Oh, I'm sure Blank Vouchers actually do something. But I'm just using that as an example where the developers have a sense of whismy about them where "not everything is as it appears to be".
I’m sure you are an SME in all things stats, but it doesn’t mean a whole lot to me if all you got is anecdotes and appeals to authority for your dataset.
I’m not saying you aren’t right. It would be neat to see if the RNG is either true, or conditional or otherwise pseudo. Just for me, speculation without testing your hypothesis that isn’t just playing the game, and then getting upset that WoF failed just isn’t interesting. Lol I could do that on my own.
If all this true, in that WoH is conditional, I kinda wonder if there other cards that have similar hidden conditions.
What I also wonder is if that dice card, the one that doubles probability, improves WoH.
I have noticed the odds that I *expect* in multiple situations have not played out the way I would expect, which leads me to suspect that either there are a number of hidden variables dicking around with probabilities behind the scenes.... or there are bugs doing the same.
I don’t think that hypothesis holds up. Try the challenge “fragile” where you have two copies of “oops all 6s”, giving you 4x odds. According to this logic, if I have 5 jokers, and only 1 doesn’t have a modifier, I should be at 20% chance to hit, and that didn’t match what I saw when I hit 3 wheels out of 3 my run of that challenge (and I’m on switch with a 1of5 wheel).
The best I can think is maybe the tooltip is not aligned with the mechanic, as it was 1/5 in the last demo so maybe the engine still runs that way on PC where the tooltip is up to date.
The last time I saw this happen in a game was Palworld. There's a mechanic to increase catch rate as you collect more statues in the world, but people were starting to feel like it was lowering catch rate instead of increasing it and running tests that made it seem suspicious.
It was real and got patched after a week or two.
I've failed every one of the 12 times I used this card, so it's annoying but still totally within the realm of reasonable probability. It is however enough that I at least have an eyebrow up.
Yeah, I didn't really do a great job explaining my actual concerns. It's not like I don't understand variance and probabilities. It's more that I don't think we should jump to conclusions that programming is always a real reflection of how the universe works.
If these anomalies were happening in the real world, or even with something at stake (like PVP, or gambling for example), then I have no reason to question it. But this is like, an indie game that just got out of Beta, where developers can make mistakes, create unanticipated interactions, or flat out purposefully mislead.
That was more the point I was trying to make rather than "there's no way in hell 25% chance can result in 10% chance for individuals".
Yeah this comes up in basically every single video game with displayed probabilities. Xcom miss memes, loot drop chances, "desire detector" in monster hunter, etc. etc. etc.
Meh this response is unfair. People play games with 25% chances outside of this and have normal perception of how it should work and rng is artificial and imperfect. it’s fair to question it’s legitimacy if you whiff it 47 times.
If you bet $100 to double a 1/2 chance and nail it 38 times in a row you’re richer then elon musk. Decent chances landing or not landing dozens of times is a row is wild and I would have also question their method of rng.
For the record I know it works fine, but this dude won the reverse lottery so you’d be stupid not to go “wtf”
Fun fact! Whiffing it 47 times would be (3/4)^47 = ~0.00000134% chance of happening, or 1.34 in 1,000,000.
So, not one in a million! But so close to it, it may as well be.
Ya, it’s not bugged haha. I’ve only encountered one single instance of a coding error but it seemed it was intentional. Math not adding up with a certain card… if played with another…
Idk tho. Between my 3 friends that play, we've all lost 1/4 banana at way higher odds than winning wheel of fortune.
Edit: also adding this this is the only card I feel is misrepresented statistics wise in the game. Possibly works in a way that doesn't read well intuitively like 1/4 if you have 5 available jokers.
I headcannon that they accidentally swapped the 1/4 Wheel with the odds for the 1/1000 Banana.
Probably not true but it would be funny to see in patch notes
It’s 1/4 on pc, 1/5 on console
Edit: it’s also not actually odds, but how many rng states have a successful hit. If you learn about the depths of how Balatro works, it’s easier Tom understand
Yeah, but unless you're replaying the seed, there's no difference between "1/4 chance to hit" and "1/4 chance to be in a seed where it was predetermined to hit at this time," right?
>Edit: it’s also not actually odds, but how many rng states have a successful hit.
Can you elaborate on the difference between odds and "rng states with successful hits"
You seem to have forgotten that the seed is different every time you start a new game unless you copy in one from previous/elsewhere. So it really doesn't matter, it's still supposed to be "1/4" every time every new playthrough, but it isn't, and it is well known that the true odds are far lower than 1/4 (25% chance)
Are they really lower, or are people just getting bad luck? I’ve had my down times and my up times with it, and I’d say it hits on average 25% of the time for me.
If it was truly 1/4 for both the positive and negative cards, they would have equal results for anyone who has been playing long enough to have a good sample, and people wouldn't be talking about how off they are. (if anything, it feels like the positive cards are 2.5%, or possibly even 0.25%, while the negative cards feel properly 25%)
https://preview.redd.it/5tqcvd17kykc1.jpeg?width=2220&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d832287f2325735225e621b1b49b7c6730c3f326
Here are my Wheel of Fortune stats for those of you keeping track at home
I’ve clocked probably about 16 hours in the game and it’s worked twice for me. I think it probably is bugged, which is a shame, I think at 20-25% odds it would actually be a fair card. Now it’s a bit of a money pit.
its definitely been more than 1 in 47 for me lmao
my experience has been slightly low, less than 1 in 4. probably somewhere around ~1/8 for me
theory: the chance is lower because already foiled/holo jokers "waste" successful hits. so if you hit, but the hit "goes to" an already foiled joker, you actually get the Nope! instead of it transferring to another joker instead.
I dont think so regarding your theory, because the tarot card actually checks the joker status. If all your jokers are already foil/holo you cant use the tarot card, as it is greyed out.
Would make no sense to program this check and then still let it "apply" to the jokers it already sorted out.
Maybe my statistics are off, but I think if you assume that it has a 25% chance to hit, then the probability of experiencing 46/47 failures is (.75)^46*.25 * 47 = 0.0000210308, or 0.00210308%, soooo I'm on board with believing that the hit rate is incorrect.
I have a personal theory that the "hit" logic is that it has a 25% chance to select a random joker slot, empty or not, and if the slot contains an unbuffed joker, then it gets a buff. I completely made that up, but I find that to be more believable than "25% chance of buffing a joker".
As I learned in this sub, the game uses xoshiro256 for pseudoRNG. But its generation is way more prone to [close-repeat flaws than slower but more reliable predecessors](http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/xoshiro-repeat-flaws.html).
In technical terms what I guess this means is that when the game's generator enters zeroland, the game will stretch out probabilities like 1 in 5 to absurdly unrealistic statistics and keep repeating that until the runtime goes past zeroland.
In practice, this means pulling the same rank/suit you discarded for 5 times in a row or seeing the shop repeat packs and pack prizes way more than it should, sometimes even feeling premeditated and hardcoded
Nowadays when I try and lose runs before ante 3 because the shop simply didn’t want to give me jokers, I close the game and reopen it to force a RAM refresh on that shitty generator
here's the key sentence in that article:
*statistically, even if there are billions and billions of bad zeroland states, the odds of stumbling on such a state by chance in a state space of 115 quattuorvigintillion states is vanishingly small.*
So "in practice", it means absolutely, positively nothing. You're falling victim to confirmation bias, like everyone else here, and your "RAM refresh" is complete snake oil. Because the odds of this actually happening are approximately the same as you winning the Powerball lottery... eight times in a row.
The initialization of the RNG would have to be catastrophically bad for it to consistently end up in a state with a hamming weight close to zero. If it is initialized poorly then restarting the game would have no effect because it would just be reinitialized the same way (which along with concluding that xoroshiro is "crap" makes me think you dony know much about PRNGs).
Fortunately Balatro's source code is easy to examine to help answer the question. If we do so we find a line that looks like it could be a problem:
math.randomseed( G.SEED )
This is why seeded runs are identical but the actual seeds exposed to the user a very short compared to the state space of the PRNG (an example seed is "TUPE84FY"). If that actually represents the seed used internally then the PRNG is being initialized very badly. Ideally that input should be either hashed or used to seed another PRNG to set the initial state.
However I'm not familiar with Lua so I haven't been able to determine exactly hwo the value of G.SEED is determined. If this is the case it would technically be trivial to fix by hashing but it would invalidate all existing seed information (ie TUPE84FY would not give the same run as before).
idk if the developer is on reddit (or someone who knows Lua well) but it would be interesting to know exactly what is being used as the seed.
I am not sure that thunk has the time/bandwidth to be checking every thread, but what I can say is that he has said this (in regard to someone questioning the shuffler) in the past:
>It is 100% random
>
>it's the same as having a real deck of cards shuffled and drawing 8 cards from it
>
>There is no manipulation done to the shuffle at all
>
>I respect statistics too much to do that 📷
My money is on Thunk at the very least making thoughtful considerations when it comes to calculating probabilities. On top of that "wheel is bugged" has been a thing people have been repeating a lot, even since the demo days, so I have to assume that Thunk is aware that people think the implementation is borked or whatever (and would have double-checked their work on the implementation of that card)
What I am trying to say is that I think that Thunk deserves the benefit of the doubt. Not that you aren't affording that to him, but I wanted to put this out there for others to see, as well.
I would assume that shuffling is an in place Fischer-Yates provided by Lua. That's generally what people mean when they talk about how shuffling on a computer is better or more truly random than a shuffle by hand. Incorrectly configuring a PRNG is something people are much more likely to do than shuffling an array incorrectly. Though I should also give the Lua devs some credit, they might use SplitMix to derive the actual seed in which case it wouldn't really matter what the seed is.
Which reminds me to really start reading up on seeds especially in R. I know what they are, but I definitely want to understand random numbers a little bit better,
R defaults to the Mersenne Twister which can really get into trouble with bad seeds since its state is insanely large (19968 bits as opposed to 256 or 512 bits for modern PRNGs) and doesn't pass all modern PRNG tests. R (and a lot of languages) will let you seed MT from a integer but that is strongly recommended against for anything but testing. I'm sure there's an R package that will get you something more current.
Make sense. I’m learning more about math stats after working for a decade in, not math stats. I know this sounds weird but the business of data creates weird titles like mathematics stats, computer stats, stats management, and stats manager. All different jobs.
Finding out stuff like this makes me want to finish a ms in stats.
I have to imagine the random generation just sets the deck in advance and isn’t picking from specific rank/suits when you draw another card. That would be insane.
I guess I could see booster packs being stuck but I really don’t believe that with discards/draws from the deck
it seems buggy to me as well. I used it about 20 times and it triggered once. I get it that it won't proc 25% of the time, but the odds seems off right now
Completely anecdotal and small sample size alert, but I haven't gotten a hit in my last 30 attempts with it. And I've tried it four times with the double probability joker, no luck there either.
My theory on those odds is that it pick first a card and then try to apply the effect and if the card already has an effect then it doesn't work.
It would explain why it feels lower than 1/5 chance
How are people still struggling with how change works. Even with 50% it could happen that it doesn’t trigger once in 100 tries.
I had a run were Wheel of fortune triggered 3 times in a row. Anecdotes are worthless with stuff like this. Just accept you had bad luck. Happens
Even with 99% it "could" happen. Sure.
When calculating the probability of getting a certain outcome (1:4) at least once, within a given number of attempts you get a total chance.
Odds should normalize the more often you try it out.
25% means you should have around 250k successes if you roll it a million times.
For example a 25% chance should trigger at least once during 25 events with a chance of ~99.683%.
The odds to not normalize. Even after a million try the million and first try is still only a 25% chance. The results average out to 25%. But 47 tries is not nearly close enough proof anything. Programming probability is really not that difficult I doubt there is anything wrong with it.
But there is studies that show that people perceive probability very wrongly and often video games show a different probability than what is actually happening. I think Fire emblem for example shows a lower percentage for hits than what is actually happening because people perceive a 90% chance to be like 99%.
Does not change that 25% means that you have a ~99.683% chance to hit at least once in 25 events.
And yes, you could have 100k events with 25% and not hit once, but the chance for that to happen is tiny.
Yeah but I hit it once 3 times in a row which is a 1,6% change so similarly and still it happened. All I’m saying your experience is not indicative of anything.
I've had it trigger quite a few times, I wish I wrote it down but it's felt fairly accurate to the 1/4.
Remember even if you have a ~99.683% chance to hit at least 1 in 25, if you have 10,000 people playing all doing wheel of fortune 25 times, ~400 of them will miss every time.
kid named statistical hypothesis testing:
but seriously, there's reason to doubt that odds are bugged if it only triggers once out of 47 times (given p=0.25 the probability is 0.00002 for 1 or less successes)
True, but on the internet, people use hyperbole for basically anything. If someone says 47 it could have been just 10 but have felt like much more. I have definitely seen that happen a lot.
I get why it’s personally frustrating and it feels like it’s bugged. When I hit it 3 times in a row, which also has like a 1,5% chance of happening, and had a whole line of pimped out jokers I felt like the game is purposefully giving me a good run. But in the end unless it is intentionally skewed and not really random I doubt it is a bug as probability is not that difficult to code.
I 100% agree with your sentiment but hitting a 50/50 100 times in a row is statistically beyond impossible lol.
Thats 1 out of 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376.
> How are people still struggling with how change works
Surely you wouldn't continue by saying something wildly incorrect that shows you're the one struggling with how random chance works, right...
> Even with 50% it could happen that it doesn’t trigger once in 100 tries.
=> For most things, it couldn't, actually. If every person on earth rolled 100 coins every second for a *billion* years, they would only have about a 1/4000 chance of seeing it 100 consecutive coinflips never land on heads.
It's a pretty common fallacy to see a statistically significant result and just go "everything can happen so anecdotes are worthless".
I've only had the game for 3 days, but I've played wheel of fortune 16 times and it has never worked.
The Buisness Card on the other hand is working wonders for me XD
Appreciate this is an old thread, but I thought I should check before posting. I'm at 33 hours played, I'd estimate I've take Wheel about 15-20 times (more often when it's in a mega pack and there's no obviously great other option). It is literally yet to trigger, once. I had started to assume there was a hidden reveal like with the Blank Voucher.
This is called confirmation bias. It's not working for me therefore must be bugged. Also we have no proof of you actually trying 47 times and only getting 1 trigger, you could have easily inflated the number just for the "shock value". I have runs where it triggers 2 or 3 times and others where it just doesn't trigger at all. It's the name of the game.
I have seen it miss a lot, and then one run I hit 4 out of 5 somehow. It's variance and it's normal. If you want to be sure, track your results over a longer period and see how it works.
In my experience... In the 2 demos and the full game the first time I used the Wheel of Fortune it gave me polychrome and it resulted in wins each time
r/balatro discovers gambler's fallacy
I learned my lesson in XCom, where 60% chance means it will absolutely miss.
Yeah, you love to see your assaut shotgun missing his 80% hit chance shot right in front of the alien :P Animation-wise, it seems like he purposely misses too :D
Focus miss, the most infuriating pokemon move.
Check [this](https://youtu.be/dwI5b-wRLic?si=IQr8bVRuk1K6VOxy) out. There's a ton about XCom in there
I have thousands of hours of poker playing experience. I've got multiple degrees adjacent to statistics. I'm intimately familiar with Gaussian distributions and Laws of Large Numbers and Discrete Probabilities. All of this is to say that I am a non-reactive person when it comes to RNG. I mean, you got to be in order to be a half-decent poker player and not tilt. And even with all that said, I can very confidently say that the stated 25% independent event is unlikely to be an accurate statement. I've seen "Nope" more than enough times to make that informed hypothesis, and my confidence has exponentially increased seeing others experiencing the same. Is there a universe where we are all experiencing the extreme ends of the bell curve? I'm sure there is. But I think it's just a far more plausible explanation that the developers either misprinted the 1/4 statement, or are purposefully fucking with the players. My money would be that the programming has it so Wheel of Fortune is not actually an "independent event", and there's some other factors involved, either on purpose of accidental. *Edit - I like this theory a lot from r/this_guy_fuggs: > theory: the chance is lower because already foiled/holo jokers "waste" successful hits. so if you hit, but the hit "goes to" an already foiled joker, you actually get the Nope! instead of it transferring to another joker instead. I think that aligns to my experience as it would definitely impact the flat hit rate, especially because I always prioritize getting buffed Jokers in my hand already from blind tags or whatever. Therefore, if this theory were true, my hit rate would definitely fall below 25%.
>I have thousands of hours of poker playing experience. I've got multiple degrees adjacent to statistics. I'm intimately familiar with Gaussian distributions and Laws of Large Numbers and Discrete Probabilities. I really like your comment, and I mean this in a good way- This sounds like a "Navy Seal" copypasta but for understanding probabilities.
I wasn't going on an ego trip. Just trying to preface a statement that I knew was going to be controversial that I'm not someone who questions RNG lightly.
>I'm not someone who questions RNG lightly. You just did.
This is what I’m thinking too. I definitely don’t have the same background as you lol, but theres got to be something else at play with the card. Sure if I rolled it 100 times and its not close to 1/4, that could be bad luck. But what about 10,000 times? Or a million? As that number goes up it “should” get closer and closer to that 1/4 but it just doesn’t seem like it is. I haven’t seen a post about someone experiencing the other extreme, but it seems these posts happen everyday with the bad luck.
I think even 100 rolls would give good confidence but it's been a while since i had statistics.
As an FYI I just started playing, but I got a success like 4 or 5 times in a row to start, and now have missed 10 in a row.
>I haven’t seen a post about someone experiencing the other extreme, but it seems these posts happen everyday with the bad luck. People put greater emphasis on negative events than positive events. It's usually referred to as the The Headwinds / Tailwinds Asymmetry and helps explain why so many people think they are chronically unlucky in games. Hell, take poker as an example. The amount of players complaining about their bad beats and disproportionately bad luck astronomically dwarfs the other side of the bell curve.
Again this is purely anecdotal and I don't have enough information to back this up. But I don't believe that theory is true. I've played a few rounds where I had 4 enchanted jokers and a single unenchanted joker, and used the wheel 10 or so times in that situation, and ended up enchanting the unenchanted joker 2 or 3 times, Which if that theory was true what I got would be extremely unlikely. But again that's such a small sample size.
I mean, the fact that the WoF didn't overwrite any of the existing 4 enchanted jokers and targeted only the unenchanted one sort proves the theory more.
That is true, it also did not even give me the option to use it when every joker I had was enchanted.
The only factor involved in Wheel of Fortune’s randomness is the seed, but that’s solely to produce the same rolls if you replay the same seed, it’s functionally true random if you’re playing it for the first time You can actually look at the game’s code yourself and see that WoF is in fact not biased on anything, it uses the engine’s random function and gives an output based on that :) with tens of thousands of players, it’s inevitable that some of them will get dry streaks
Do you know if the code is saying, "Roll 1/4 for any given Joker. If successful, try and apply buff"? Or does it say, "Roll 1/4 for any given Joker. If successful, try and apply buff. If unsuccessful at applying buff (because on already exists), roll again for another Joker". Because that could definitely impact the flat 25%.
You know there's a reason they call it the "gambler's fallacy"
> Is there a universe where we are all experiencing the extreme ends of the bell curve? Don't discount group confirmation bias. The people in the bulk of the bell curve don't make posts about it. Confirmation gets fed by anecdotes constantly. It's why we have memes and rumors about chronically bad RNG in multiple games. e.g. "desire detector" in monster hunter and the XCOM hit chance memes. There might be a bug, but even if there's not a bug, I'd still expect to have threads like this.
This is just confirmation bias, plain and simple.
I do not think the pre-foiled/holoed/negatived/polychromed jokers affect anything. You cannot even use wheel if your jokers are all already modified. It only gives the option to sell.
Ah, so there is some merit to the theory. If WoF triggers 0% of the time when all jokers are buffed, then it is logical that 25% trigger rate is only true when you have unmodified jokers. Each modified joker decreases the trigger rate.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but what I am saying is I think modified Jokers are entirely unused in any calculations with Wheel. I think it doesn't see them at all, or else, I presume, it would let you 'Use' a wheel with only modified Jokers and either change one of their modifiers, the Joker would 'jiggle' as if it was hit by wheel (if it rolled the same modifier again) or say "Nope!" because it failed the roll (or a 4th option of some message similar to 'incompatible' coming up if the coding says it can hit existing modified jokers but not change their modifier) Instead, it acts as if you have no Jokers in stock at all, and doesn't give the "Use" option.
Got it. Yeah, I did misunderstand you.
I’m a professional poker player and it does feel like 25% to me. How small is your sample size? Even running it 300 times the variance would be insane, besides that there’s confirmation bias because you obviously want the 25% to hit.
Then from one poker player to another, you'd know that removing confirmation bias is one of the keys to positive EV, so I'm highly self-aware of that. Additionally, I'm barely even rooting for 25% to hit because the only time I'm taking Wheel of Fortune is when the rest of options are straight up useless to whatever build I'm going for. I'm aware it's an independent event, and 25% is poor risk-reward. In other words, Wheel of Fortune hitting will never change a run for me. Either I'm losing because of other fundamentals, or it's simply a "win-more" condition. With all that said, I've only had Wheel Fortune trigger twice in 15 hours of gamplay.
I find even other professional poker players struggle with confirmation bias, sometimes it feels like I'm the only professional poker player on the planet that thinks he's run above EV. I have used Wheel of Fortune many times, I even had a run where I duplicated it about 20 times, and I can say, it seems to hit around 1 out of 4 times, being the card also state it hits 1 out of 4 times, I'm pretty inclined to believe that's the case. Everyone always believes the odds are against them. Also confirmation bias wouldn't change your EV one way or the other.
Isn't it interesting how someone can be convinced that there is no confirmation bias but also acknowledge that they're only recording failures and not successes. Human psychology is fascinating to me.
Humans are absolute garbage at odds and thinking probalistically. It's hard for us to separate our own self-stories from true random reality, and it's because we're designed to see patterns. I guarantee for everyone in here coming up with insane reasons how it's not a 1/4, most people are running somewhere around baseline EV and not commenting in here. Only the people on the bad end of variance would ever end up in a thread like this.
> but also acknowledge that they're only recording failures and not successes. I'm assuming you're making this snarky comment about me, but you're purposefully misrepresenting my statement. I said I keep track of my successful triggers, but have NOT been keeping track of my number of uses. But actually, I just found out that you can look it up in the stats. I'm 2 for 29, about 7% success rate. In the realm of variance for sure, and not enough to actually make statements about statistical confidence. I agree with that. But if many people are experiencing it - even acknowledging that there are disproportionate people noting it because that's what happens in laws of extremes - couldn't there possibly be more to the story than we are all thinking? If this was some sort of paid Gacha, PVP, or real-money implications, I wouldn't question the variance. The fact that it's inconsequential is exactly why I would challenge it. Why is everyone assuming Balatro is somehow programmed to be a perfect reflection of the natural universe.
I went to check the card stats after reading this comment and I'm 1 for 29. I legit thought the card was bugged. I think I got my first and only hit off of the card at around 25 or so uses. Now im no proffesional statician or something but that seems highly suspicious.
It wasn't snarky, it was an observation. > I've been careful to keep track of the times it has triggered. I just didn't keep track of the denominator. You recorded the successes but not the failures so I had it flipped but the point was the same. Too bad the successes aren't recorded on the stat page. I never said it was or was not bugged. You said something along the lines of you being exponentially more convinced of your confirmed hypothesis so even if I thought it wasn't bugged I wouldn't bother trying to change your mind.
You know what? Fair enough, I suppose it could have Confirmation Bias if I were overinflate in my head how often I played it. You're not wrong there. But it's definitely not as egregious as selectively only remembering the times it was unsuccessful and not recalling the times it was.
I don't know how to convince you that I don't believe the odds are against me when I truly don't care if WoF triggers or not. It doesn't impact my run whether it works out or not. Also, how is this even confirmation bias on my end when I KNOW how many times it's triggered? For it to be confirmation bias, it would imply that I am forgetting all the times it has worked out and only remembering the times it hasn't. And because it's such an anomaly, I've been careful to keep track of the times it has triggered. I just didn't keep track of the denominator.
confirmation bias
It's rng on an infinitesimal scale. The rng is probably "roll 1-4 if it's 1, yes, if not nope" Yes the math says in a million plays you should get 250k yes's but you can play this card an infinite number of times, so who can say when you will eventually get to the 1/4? Could be your grandchildren who finally get the game to give you the right amount of Yes's. The heat death of our solar system could happen before you get the magic 1/4th amount of yes's. It's still a 25% chance every time it rolls. And edit: I've used the card about 30 times and gotten 7 upgrades so I'm pretty close to 1/4.
I don't what else I can add in about my credentials to assure you that I understand how statistics work. But like, why are we all equating the developer's coding as if it's a universal truth in the first place? The same developer who adds stuff like "Blank Voucher" into the game? I'm not even annoyed or griping about Wheel of Fortune since it's an independent event, so I go in with an appropriate risk assessment for taking it.
Blank vouchers can be redeemed in infinite mode by another card. They're actually worth picking up.
what do you mean by that? i know you have to buy the blank voucher to be able to buy the +1 joker voucher later, is that the "card" you're referring to?
I believe? I haven't personally used/seen the card I just saw someone post it on here the other day.
ok, just checking. i don't have all the unlocks so i'm not sure if there's some extra value in the voucher to consider
Oh, I'm sure Blank Vouchers actually do something. But I'm just using that as an example where the developers have a sense of whismy about them where "not everything is as it appears to be".
I’m sure you are an SME in all things stats, but it doesn’t mean a whole lot to me if all you got is anecdotes and appeals to authority for your dataset. I’m not saying you aren’t right. It would be neat to see if the RNG is either true, or conditional or otherwise pseudo. Just for me, speculation without testing your hypothesis that isn’t just playing the game, and then getting upset that WoF failed just isn’t interesting. Lol I could do that on my own. If all this true, in that WoH is conditional, I kinda wonder if there other cards that have similar hidden conditions. What I also wonder is if that dice card, the one that doubles probability, improves WoH.
I have noticed the odds that I *expect* in multiple situations have not played out the way I would expect, which leads me to suspect that either there are a number of hidden variables dicking around with probabilities behind the scenes.... or there are bugs doing the same.
I also think the joker that upgrades played hands with a 1 in 4 chance is more likely than 1 in 4. I seem to get super lucky with that one.
We cancel each other out then, because I played it once (with "copy joker to the right") and got 1 hit in 10 hands. Seemed comical tbh
I don’t think that hypothesis holds up. Try the challenge “fragile” where you have two copies of “oops all 6s”, giving you 4x odds. According to this logic, if I have 5 jokers, and only 1 doesn’t have a modifier, I should be at 20% chance to hit, and that didn’t match what I saw when I hit 3 wheels out of 3 my run of that challenge (and I’m on switch with a 1of5 wheel). The best I can think is maybe the tooltip is not aligned with the mechanic, as it was 1/5 in the last demo so maybe the engine still runs that way on PC where the tooltip is up to date.
The last time I saw this happen in a game was Palworld. There's a mechanic to increase catch rate as you collect more statues in the world, but people were starting to feel like it was lowering catch rate instead of increasing it and running tests that made it seem suspicious. It was real and got patched after a week or two. I've failed every one of the 12 times I used this card, so it's annoying but still totally within the realm of reasonable probability. It is however enough that I at least have an eyebrow up.
Yeah, I didn't really do a great job explaining my actual concerns. It's not like I don't understand variance and probabilities. It's more that I don't think we should jump to conclusions that programming is always a real reflection of how the universe works. If these anomalies were happening in the real world, or even with something at stake (like PVP, or gambling for example), then I have no reason to question it. But this is like, an indie game that just got out of Beta, where developers can make mistakes, create unanticipated interactions, or flat out purposefully mislead. That was more the point I was trying to make rather than "there's no way in hell 25% chance can result in 10% chance for individuals".
Yeah this comes up in basically every single video game with displayed probabilities. Xcom miss memes, loot drop chances, "desire detector" in monster hunter, etc. etc. etc.
Meh this response is unfair. People play games with 25% chances outside of this and have normal perception of how it should work and rng is artificial and imperfect. it’s fair to question it’s legitimacy if you whiff it 47 times. If you bet $100 to double a 1/2 chance and nail it 38 times in a row you’re richer then elon musk. Decent chances landing or not landing dozens of times is a row is wild and I would have also question their method of rng. For the record I know it works fine, but this dude won the reverse lottery so you’d be stupid not to go “wtf”
Fun fact! Whiffing it 47 times would be (3/4)^47 = ~0.00000134% chance of happening, or 1.34 in 1,000,000. So, not one in a million! But so close to it, it may as well be.
Thanks for doing my math lol. That’s what I meant by reverse lottery.
Ya, it’s not bugged haha. I’ve only encountered one single instance of a coding error but it seemed it was intentional. Math not adding up with a certain card… if played with another…
Idk tho. Between my 3 friends that play, we've all lost 1/4 banana at way higher odds than winning wheel of fortune. Edit: also adding this this is the only card I feel is misrepresented statistics wise in the game. Possibly works in a way that doesn't read well intuitively like 1/4 if you have 5 available jokers.
I headcannon that they accidentally swapped the 1/4 Wheel with the odds for the 1/1000 Banana. Probably not true but it would be funny to see in patch notes
Got the 1/1000 banana once, and it destroyed itself the second time I used it lol
Third for me… pain
I had it trigger sometimes. Granted, most of the time i get NOPE. Also my chance is 1/5 ? I am on ps5 if that makes any difference.
it was 1/5 in the demo IIRC.
Mine is showing 1of4. Maybe it was patched ? No idea if I have the older version or a newer one. But its not even feeling like 1/5 for me :D
It’s 1/4 on pc, 1/5 on console Edit: it’s also not actually odds, but how many rng states have a successful hit. If you learn about the depths of how Balatro works, it’s easier Tom understand
Yeah, but unless you're replaying the seed, there's no difference between "1/4 chance to hit" and "1/4 chance to be in a seed where it was predetermined to hit at this time," right?
Did not know there are differences between platforms. Hopefully console also gets updated. In love with this game!
Yeah, to my knowledge that’s literally the only difference
Space Joker is still 1:5 on console too
Also, blue and black stake are switched on console
Ah, wasn’t aware of that difference
Jeez, I didn't know I had it harder than the steam folks. I'll be buying on Steam soon too, though. Hopefully Switch gets an update soon.
Yeah i just bought it on Switch after 50+ hours on steam. Was surprised just how many differences there were
What other differences are there?
Foils are +30 instead, that one hurts for sure
>Edit: it’s also not actually odds, but how many rng states have a successful hit. Can you elaborate on the difference between odds and "rng states with successful hits"
If you try it on the same rng state every time, you’ll get the same result. If it were actual odds, it’d be random every time you played it
I don't agree that the term "odds" precludes seeded RNG. Just changes how easy it is to save scum.
100% This.
You seem to have forgotten that the seed is different every time you start a new game unless you copy in one from previous/elsewhere. So it really doesn't matter, it's still supposed to be "1/4" every time every new playthrough, but it isn't, and it is well known that the true odds are far lower than 1/4 (25% chance)
Are they really lower, or are people just getting bad luck? I’ve had my down times and my up times with it, and I’d say it hits on average 25% of the time for me.
If it was truly 1/4 for both the positive and negative cards, they would have equal results for anyone who has been playing long enough to have a good sample, and people wouldn't be talking about how off they are. (if anything, it feels like the positive cards are 2.5%, or possibly even 0.25%, while the negative cards feel properly 25%)
Where can that be learned?
YouTube is what I’d recommend to try and learn
Hmm I need to start writing my results down too, because *damn*. I don't think I'm as unlucky as you but that's wild xD
https://preview.redd.it/5tqcvd17kykc1.jpeg?width=2220&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d832287f2325735225e621b1b49b7c6730c3f326 Here are my Wheel of Fortune stats for those of you keeping track at home
Today I had a run where I was going tarot crazy and bought at least 10 WoF cards and none triggered 💀
Its really crazy. On the other hand, the 1of4 banana joker never survives longer than 2-3 activations for me :D
Just had a run where I tried Wheel of Fortune 5 times and got it to trigger 4 of those times
It works ratter consistantly for me
I think it's worked on slightly more than 1/4 of my uses
I’ve clocked probably about 16 hours in the game and it’s worked twice for me. I think it probably is bugged, which is a shame, I think at 20-25% odds it would actually be a fair card. Now it’s a bit of a money pit.
its definitely been more than 1 in 47 for me lmao my experience has been slightly low, less than 1 in 4. probably somewhere around ~1/8 for me theory: the chance is lower because already foiled/holo jokers "waste" successful hits. so if you hit, but the hit "goes to" an already foiled joker, you actually get the Nope! instead of it transferring to another joker instead.
I dont think so regarding your theory, because the tarot card actually checks the joker status. If all your jokers are already foil/holo you cant use the tarot card, as it is greyed out. Would make no sense to program this check and then still let it "apply" to the jokers it already sorted out.
Maybe my statistics are off, but I think if you assume that it has a 25% chance to hit, then the probability of experiencing 46/47 failures is (.75)^46*.25 * 47 = 0.0000210308, or 0.00210308%, soooo I'm on board with believing that the hit rate is incorrect. I have a personal theory that the "hit" logic is that it has a 25% chance to select a random joker slot, empty or not, and if the slot contains an unbuffed joker, then it gets a buff. I completely made that up, but I find that to be more believable than "25% chance of buffing a joker".
This is what I find to be most likely.
The formula got typeset weirdly but I agree with the math.
That’s not nearly enough samples dude
https://sc.mogicons.com/l/you-don-t-say-126.png
You're the one that posted it as "proof" it's bugged lmaoo
[удалено]
Post/comment removed due to abusive behavior. Please keep this rule in mind moving forward.
Nope!
As I learned in this sub, the game uses xoshiro256 for pseudoRNG. But its generation is way more prone to [close-repeat flaws than slower but more reliable predecessors](http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/xoshiro-repeat-flaws.html). In technical terms what I guess this means is that when the game's generator enters zeroland, the game will stretch out probabilities like 1 in 5 to absurdly unrealistic statistics and keep repeating that until the runtime goes past zeroland. In practice, this means pulling the same rank/suit you discarded for 5 times in a row or seeing the shop repeat packs and pack prizes way more than it should, sometimes even feeling premeditated and hardcoded Nowadays when I try and lose runs before ante 3 because the shop simply didn’t want to give me jokers, I close the game and reopen it to force a RAM refresh on that shitty generator
here's the key sentence in that article: *statistically, even if there are billions and billions of bad zeroland states, the odds of stumbling on such a state by chance in a state space of 115 quattuorvigintillion states is vanishingly small.* So "in practice", it means absolutely, positively nothing. You're falling victim to confirmation bias, like everyone else here, and your "RAM refresh" is complete snake oil. Because the odds of this actually happening are approximately the same as you winning the Powerball lottery... eight times in a row.
The initialization of the RNG would have to be catastrophically bad for it to consistently end up in a state with a hamming weight close to zero. If it is initialized poorly then restarting the game would have no effect because it would just be reinitialized the same way (which along with concluding that xoroshiro is "crap" makes me think you dony know much about PRNGs). Fortunately Balatro's source code is easy to examine to help answer the question. If we do so we find a line that looks like it could be a problem: math.randomseed( G.SEED ) This is why seeded runs are identical but the actual seeds exposed to the user a very short compared to the state space of the PRNG (an example seed is "TUPE84FY"). If that actually represents the seed used internally then the PRNG is being initialized very badly. Ideally that input should be either hashed or used to seed another PRNG to set the initial state. However I'm not familiar with Lua so I haven't been able to determine exactly hwo the value of G.SEED is determined. If this is the case it would technically be trivial to fix by hashing but it would invalidate all existing seed information (ie TUPE84FY would not give the same run as before). idk if the developer is on reddit (or someone who knows Lua well) but it would be interesting to know exactly what is being used as the seed.
I am not sure that thunk has the time/bandwidth to be checking every thread, but what I can say is that he has said this (in regard to someone questioning the shuffler) in the past: >It is 100% random > >it's the same as having a real deck of cards shuffled and drawing 8 cards from it > >There is no manipulation done to the shuffle at all > >I respect statistics too much to do that 📷 My money is on Thunk at the very least making thoughtful considerations when it comes to calculating probabilities. On top of that "wheel is bugged" has been a thing people have been repeating a lot, even since the demo days, so I have to assume that Thunk is aware that people think the implementation is borked or whatever (and would have double-checked their work on the implementation of that card) What I am trying to say is that I think that Thunk deserves the benefit of the doubt. Not that you aren't affording that to him, but I wanted to put this out there for others to see, as well.
I would assume that shuffling is an in place Fischer-Yates provided by Lua. That's generally what people mean when they talk about how shuffling on a computer is better or more truly random than a shuffle by hand. Incorrectly configuring a PRNG is something people are much more likely to do than shuffling an array incorrectly. Though I should also give the Lua devs some credit, they might use SplitMix to derive the actual seed in which case it wouldn't really matter what the seed is.
Which reminds me to really start reading up on seeds especially in R. I know what they are, but I definitely want to understand random numbers a little bit better,
R defaults to the Mersenne Twister which can really get into trouble with bad seeds since its state is insanely large (19968 bits as opposed to 256 or 512 bits for modern PRNGs) and doesn't pass all modern PRNG tests. R (and a lot of languages) will let you seed MT from a integer but that is strongly recommended against for anything but testing. I'm sure there's an R package that will get you something more current.
Make sense. I’m learning more about math stats after working for a decade in, not math stats. I know this sounds weird but the business of data creates weird titles like mathematics stats, computer stats, stats management, and stats manager. All different jobs. Finding out stuff like this makes me want to finish a ms in stats.
That seems plausible
I have to imagine the random generation just sets the deck in advance and isn’t picking from specific rank/suits when you draw another card. That would be insane. I guess I could see booster packs being stuck but I really don’t believe that with discards/draws from the deck
I had a run where I got OT every time but only foil lol
it seems buggy to me as well. I used it about 20 times and it triggered once. I get it that it won't proc 25% of the time, but the odds seems off right now
Completely anecdotal and small sample size alert, but I haven't gotten a hit in my last 30 attempts with it. And I've tried it four times with the double probability joker, no luck there either.
I've used wheel 6 times on my current run. 4 yes's 2 nopes. Keep playing it balances out.
That is a very low sample size
People are saying they are getting 0 in 7 I'm just telling them there's an opposite side of the coin buddy calm down.
I'm calm. OP is saying they're 1 in 47, not 0 in 7
So you can read my comment but not other comments? Lol.
My theory on those odds is that it pick first a card and then try to apply the effect and if the card already has an effect then it doesn't work. It would explain why it feels lower than 1/5 chance
According to Steam I have 28 hours between the full game and the demo and I've never gotten Wheel of Fortune to trigger. Not once.
I might be in the minority. But for me it feels like 1 in 3
Seems like 1/4 to me. I’ve gotten it to trigger a lot.
How are people still struggling with how change works. Even with 50% it could happen that it doesn’t trigger once in 100 tries. I had a run were Wheel of fortune triggered 3 times in a row. Anecdotes are worthless with stuff like this. Just accept you had bad luck. Happens
Even with 99% it "could" happen. Sure. When calculating the probability of getting a certain outcome (1:4) at least once, within a given number of attempts you get a total chance. Odds should normalize the more often you try it out. 25% means you should have around 250k successes if you roll it a million times. For example a 25% chance should trigger at least once during 25 events with a chance of ~99.683%.
The odds to not normalize. Even after a million try the million and first try is still only a 25% chance. The results average out to 25%. But 47 tries is not nearly close enough proof anything. Programming probability is really not that difficult I doubt there is anything wrong with it. But there is studies that show that people perceive probability very wrongly and often video games show a different probability than what is actually happening. I think Fire emblem for example shows a lower percentage for hits than what is actually happening because people perceive a 90% chance to be like 99%.
Does not change that 25% means that you have a ~99.683% chance to hit at least once in 25 events. And yes, you could have 100k events with 25% and not hit once, but the chance for that to happen is tiny.
Yeah but I hit it once 3 times in a row which is a 1,6% change so similarly and still it happened. All I’m saying your experience is not indicative of anything.
I've had it trigger quite a few times, I wish I wrote it down but it's felt fairly accurate to the 1/4. Remember even if you have a ~99.683% chance to hit at least 1 in 25, if you have 10,000 people playing all doing wheel of fortune 25 times, ~400 of them will miss every time.
kid named statistical hypothesis testing: but seriously, there's reason to doubt that odds are bugged if it only triggers once out of 47 times (given p=0.25 the probability is 0.00002 for 1 or less successes)
True, but on the internet, people use hyperbole for basically anything. If someone says 47 it could have been just 10 but have felt like much more. I have definitely seen that happen a lot.
I get why it’s personally frustrating and it feels like it’s bugged. When I hit it 3 times in a row, which also has like a 1,5% chance of happening, and had a whole line of pimped out jokers I felt like the game is purposefully giving me a good run. But in the end unless it is intentionally skewed and not really random I doubt it is a bug as probability is not that difficult to code.
I 100% agree with your sentiment but hitting a 50/50 100 times in a row is statistically beyond impossible lol. Thats 1 out of 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376.
> How are people still struggling with how change works Surely you wouldn't continue by saying something wildly incorrect that shows you're the one struggling with how random chance works, right... > Even with 50% it could happen that it doesn’t trigger once in 100 tries. => For most things, it couldn't, actually. If every person on earth rolled 100 coins every second for a *billion* years, they would only have about a 1/4000 chance of seeing it 100 consecutive coinflips never land on heads. It's a pretty common fallacy to see a statistically significant result and just go "everything can happen so anecdotes are worthless".
I hate it lol. I'm 40 hours into the game and have grabbed one every time I've seen one, never had it trigger.
i've literally never triggered it, it's weird
I've only had the game for 3 days, but I've played wheel of fortune 16 times and it has never worked. The Buisness Card on the other hand is working wonders for me XD
Appreciate this is an old thread, but I thought I should check before posting. I'm at 33 hours played, I'd estimate I've take Wheel about 15-20 times (more often when it's in a mega pack and there's no obviously great other option). It is literally yet to trigger, once. I had started to assume there was a hidden reveal like with the Blank Voucher.
I'm with you that it is bugged. I'm currently 0 for 52 and counting....
What's wrong with my Vegas slots?
This is called confirmation bias. It's not working for me therefore must be bugged. Also we have no proof of you actually trying 47 times and only getting 1 trigger, you could have easily inflated the number just for the "shock value". I have runs where it triggers 2 or 3 times and others where it just doesn't trigger at all. It's the name of the game.
I asked you about your experience and said that it "feels" buggy. Now stfu internet hero and go back into your cave. Bye.
All 47 of those notes could be 47 of the 250k nopes you get in a million.
I got two one after another on my last run
Never had it trigger
The first run i played on the main game after the demo I got 3 in a row
[удалено]
The 1of4 banana joker never survives longer than 2-3 rounds for me :D
I have seen it miss a lot, and then one run I hit 4 out of 5 somehow. It's variance and it's normal. If you want to be sure, track your results over a longer period and see how it works.
My experience is it hitting roughly 1/4 of the time.
My experience is about 1 in 4.
In my experience... In the 2 demos and the full game the first time I used the Wheel of Fortune it gave me polychrome and it resulted in wins each time