and again I refer you to:
http://kdice.com/discussion/topics/44801855
23.6 isn't even that impressive... people usually are only compelled to make posts when they're in the single digits.

chloe , how about the highest luck ever ? ;)

^ and worst

iirc kakku man had a luck percentage in the 90s once...

If someone were to make 1 roll and quit, and do that for 10 games they'd likely get 1 or 2 games of lower luck than 23.6%, possibly much lower. What is impressive is having a large number of rolls and a luck substantially below 48%.

What I should have recorded is the number of rolls that went into this 23.6%, which was around 10.

All this talk of math probably makes the stupid uncomfortable so I will stop now.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnpwi205161qg0xks.jpg
Welcome to the forums.

23.6% really isn't impressive- even ten rolls in. It feels like it sucks (because it does) but if you got luck that high, imagine how bad a .2% game is. Even if you try, you probably won't ever get luck that low.

i'm not so sure that a 0.2% luck 1-roll-and-quit game is rarer than a 23% 10-roll game.

the luck stat from each game is the measurement of the mean. however, the uncertainty in the mean is meaningless when it is simply one roll. sure, its rare, but it's still a 1/500 shot that you can hit this roll, instaquit, and brag on the forums. lets say that instead you go 0/4 on a theoretical 23.6% roll: chances of that are 0.3%. but the luck stat will show 23.6% still. i doubt that he actually rolled 10 times, i would guess more like 5 or 6 at most. but in my opinion thats nothing to dismiss out of hand.

that said, please refrain from the condescending tone. doobius was playing this game before i was. he is a genuine 2006er. he made his point in a quite conversational manner, and didnt put the my-math-is-better-than-yours-so-im-attaching-a-meme-link spin on it.

hey monte i missed you

I took his last statement as a direct insult to my intelligence and reacted accordingly. I knew Doobius has been playing a long time- hence the "welcome to the forums," since I've not seen him post before. Perhaps I just haven't been paying attention.

Come to think of it, I'm a bit surprised he posted about this when I'm sure he's had worse luck in the past. Your luck sucked this game; if you're going to refer to the stat at least make it something worthwhile imo. It would've been worth it to me if he'd posted the rolls log or hadn't said it were the worst ever. It's bad, that's for sure. But the worst ever? Hard to tell without any other information.

really, I've been at the top of the worst luck leaderboard for 3 years straight, I dont think this one game was very impressive at all. I lose every roll 70% of the time