+- (https://wuthapn.com/forums)
+-- Forum: WHAR LEWTS PLZ HALp (https://wuthapn.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: GINERAL FORUM (https://wuthapn.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. (/showthread.php?tid=1373)
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Lorake - 10-21-2009
Roj Wrote:Lorake Wrote:NOTE: PROBABILITY AND ACTUAL PERFORMANCE DON'T HAVE TO MATCH. PROBABILITY IS THE CHANCE THAT SOMETHING IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN, BUT DOESN'T HAPPEN. COMPARING IT TO "REAL" PERFORMANCE IS HILARIOUS AND IS A HUGE FAILURE ON YOUR PART.You are a joke. A complete fucking retard. You would expect some deviation based on sample size, but with this amount of data you would not expect to be off by over 1000%. Or at least an intelligent person wouldn't.
Lorake Wrote:Now for the equation. Get ready to shit on yourself in the end.You've come up with so many failures you're bound to be successfully eventually because of sheer luck.
Because your 'sample' is based off the amount of double chases you think happened. I can certainly think of at least 10 cases, if not more, based on all the pugs and our main runs that I've been in.
Your math sounds more retarded thanks to this 'thinking' you're doing. Because obviously there's no chance in hell that if you flip a coin 100 times that it'll be heads 100 times.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Roj - 10-21-2009
Lorake Wrote:So to address the situation I'll go through the steps completely, because this is the last post on the equation, because, I believe, I now have the actual equation in question, thanks to several tests via a C++ program to emulate my formula and compare it to the brute force count of the number of Y BTBs in X attempts.So with just looking at your results you're saying there's a 21.7% chance of someone being double targetted in only 7 chases? I haven't even started to plug in numbers and this is already starting to look good!!!
First off, my 'new' equation is wrong for (5,2) and (4,2) just like I suspected. Funny thing is, my original equation is 100% correct for (4,2) and (5,2) ( 11.5264% and 15.0653% probability, respectively. Yes (5,2) is ~15% for a 2 BTB, brute force assured me it). In addition, my 'new' equation was right for (6,4) and (6,3), so I went ahead and tested the equation on the 7 series ((7,2) to (7,6)). My old equation held on both (7,2) and (7,6), the new one held on (7,3) and (7,5), both failed on (7,4). However, injecting F(X-1, Y+2) into the mix of functions suddenly fixed (7,4).
Good thing my 'new' equation was wrong, because Roj's thought that it would exceed 100% was right, as it broke through the barrier at (27,2) on the 'new' equation. At (27,2) it was roughly 102% so yea the equation was wrong. Now this is where error correction starts coming in.
LORAKE'S FINAL (FOR NOW?), BRAND SPANKIN NEW EQUATION.
The probability of Y BTBs in X chases is :
Given that X,Y > 1 (It's UNPOSSIBLE to have ZERO TARGETS or 0 CHASES, OR NEGATIVE FOR THE MATTER)
F(X,Y) = 1 when Y = 1
F(X,Y) = 0 when Y>X
F(X,Y) = .04^(Y-1) + .96 * sum(F(X-1, Y+(i-1), i = 1, i <= alpha, i++)
where
alpha = Y - 1 when (X+1)/2>Y
alpha = X - Y otherwise
Well now Lorake, looks like that's even more garbage than before. Not only are you using two new variables (i and alpha) it's gonna still be over 100% in the end so obviously this will fail.
Especially since with your new function,
F(3,2) = .0784
F(4,2) = .115264
F(5,2) = .150653
F(6,2) = .184627
F(7,2) = .217242
O you are WRONG good sir. This equation will never break 100%, thanks to the magic I will show you next.
Given F(X,2) < 1 show that F(X+1, 2) < 1
So F(X+1,2) = .04 + .96F(X,2) (alpha = 1, thus the sum is equal to F(X,2))
If F(X+1,2) < 1, then
1 > .04 + .96F(X,2)
.96 > .96F(X,2)
1 > F(X,2) which is true based on our assumption.
In addition, the limit as Y approaches infinity is 0 since a finite number X will always be less than infinity.
Now for the DOUBLE LIMIT
lim F(N,N) = .04^(N-1) + 0 (.96F(N-1,N) = 0 since N > N-1)
N->INF
= .04^(N-1) = 0 since N approaches INFINITY.
I was confident with the original equation because I tested it a few times and it looked good (4,3) (4,2) (3,2) and (3,3) all worked out. When Roj broke it, I was less confident about the new equation, since a simple fix like F(X, Y+1) seemed fishy and unreasonable. Now with the several test cases I ran, including some really high ones, and thanks to the comparison to a brute force, I'm 98.6% confident in the above algorithm. The last little bit of percentage is to make up for the fact that I'm currently running (100, 30) in my algorithm, and because of the brute force, it's taking quite a bit of time. We'll see how it pans out.
SORRY ROJ NO JK LOL TROLLING, THIS EQUATION LOOKS LEGIT. GOOD THING I GOT THE EQUATION RIGHT BEFORE STRIKE 3, UNLESS YOU REALLY WANNA COUNT A TYPO IN THE WORDING OF THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE FORMULA A STRIKE FOR SOME REASON.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Lorake - 10-21-2009
While you're at it, you should figure out the probability of someone getting selected 2 times in 7 chances regardless of back to back. You might be surprised.
Also I brute forced it, and the brute force matched. So yes, it really is that high.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Crazy Diana - 10-21-2009
lorake im having a conversation with someone about how to pronounce ryu whats your theory
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Lorake - 10-21-2009
Should be one syllable not two.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - geng - 10-21-2009
its pronounced ARE-YOU
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Lorake - 10-21-2009
Roj Wrote:So with just looking at your results you're saying there's a 21.7% chance of someone being double targetted in only 7 chases? I haven't even started to plug in numbers and this is already starting to look good!!!
Just to verify - You are going to try to find A: the probability of an Anub double target on 7 chases, not B: the probability of Anub double targetting on a specific person in raid in 7 chases. If you're trying to find B this argument is moot and you just aren't listening.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Roj - 10-21-2009
Lorake Wrote:Just to verify - You are going to try to find A: the probability of an Anub double target on 7 chases, not B: the probability of Anub double targetting on a specific person in raid in 7 chases. If you're trying to find B this argument is moot and you just aren't listening.
Oh I understand. Since there should be 7 chases per full attempt, you are saying there is a 21% chance per attempt of a double chase. Which would be 1 double chase every 5 attempts. Which would be 40 double chases in 200 attempts. We've had 2 double chases in 200 attempts. Oh but I forgot, it's just a probability, so being off by 2000% is fine because you can't expect it to actually apply to the game.
It's obvious already that your latest "equation" is wrong, but I'll have to look through it tomorrow.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Thorran - 10-22-2009
We had 2 double chases tonight.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Crazy Diana - 10-22-2009
Roj Wrote:We've had 2 double chases in 200 attempts.
Thorran Wrote:We had 2 double chases tonight.
edit: i forgot about the limited amount of attempts you have so i suppose roj isnt talking about last night