Is Wheel of Fortune REALLY 1 in 4?

[May XD]

I pick this card a lot. And I swear, in 30-40 times I picked it, it worked like, 4-5 times.
Something feels off about it, idk :\

[AnonTwo]

The game likely uses actual 1/4

A lot of games where they need RNG but aren't about it (like RPGs with crit rate) will use an assisted RNG where you become more likely to succeed the more often you fail. Because of this, most games with RNG actually have higher rates than they actually appear.

Since this game is supposed to be more akin to a card game, a rogue-like, and RNG is literally core to the concept, it likely just uses RNG as is with no assistance. So you have an actual 1/4 chance of getting any results

1/4 is very low btw.

[Undeathical]

its a 75%chance to fail. That doesnt change no matter how often its chosen, unless you have a joker that affects probabilities.

[Stuffdollum]

NOPE!

[RazzberryMocha]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย noisyturtle:

♥♥♥♥ no
WoF is more like 1/12

probabilities in Balatro are all hearsay

Like the blind where 1/7 cards are drawn face down, you have a 7 card hand and somehow 4 of them are face down. Total lies and ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Search up confirmation bias and negativity bias

[R10is]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย John:

22 Hours and haven't had one hit yet, but I play DnD so I'm used to ♥♥♥♥ rolls

Seconding this. As someone who has GM'd a percentile system, I've seen just how finicky RNGsus can be.
One player consistently had rolls that refused to leave the 40-60 range for several hour long sessions.
Another had constant low rolls until combat started, then his dice wouldn't roll sub-90 until the foe was dead.
There was also a time when I demanded a trio of consecutive 100s from midrange player, and they succeeded.


Tl;dr: rng is just that, random.

[Piss Queen Antichrist]

no its a seeded 1 in 4 which could mean its a 0 percent chance depending on how your seed feels lol

[ulzgoroth]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Piss Queen Antichrist:

no its a seeded 1 in 4 which could mean its a 0 percent chance depending on how your seed feels lol

Technically true, but unless you're gaming your seed deliberately not really different from asserting retrospectively that the exact sequence of dice rolls you got has 100% probability because it already happened.

The outcome being predetermined but unknowable is not functionally different from it being random in the moment.


EDIT: If you had somebody make you a scratch-off card of d20 rolls by rolling an actual d20, using it in a ttRPG would be the same as actually rolling the dice.

[Dan]

Two people have a 50% chance of understanding probability. Neither of them do.

[Arancil]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dan:

Two people have a 50% chance of understanding probability. Neither of them do.

It FEELS more like they have 40% though.

[Dan]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Arancil:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dan:

Two people have a 50% chance of understanding probability. Neither of them do.

It FEELS more like they have 40% though.

I mean, let's be real... the joke is obviously broken - they actually have ZERO chance dammit!

[burl]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย malogoss:

Start collecting data and prove your point. You'll be surprised.

Okay here is some data on my last 4 runs:

13 nopes at normal odds, 10 nopes at 50% odds, 0.002% chance, which is only about 125X less odds than stated LOL

Roll a d4 or flip a coin and tell me how many rolls/flips it takes to get the outcome you wanted? I guarantee in both cases, the probabilities on those rolls will hover around 25%/50% the entire time.

You will NEVER reach a stretch where the 25% outcome is hitting 0.002% of the time. I don't care how big or small your data set is, it will not happen.

It's clearly wildly inconsistent and you all glazing is just shameless gaslighting.

[RazzberryMocha]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ----:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย malogoss:

Start collecting data and prove your point. You'll be surprised.

Okay here is some data on my last 4 runs:

13 nopes at normal odds, 10 nopes at 50% odds, 0.002% chance, which is only about 125X less odds than stated LOL

Roll a d4 or flip a coin and tell me how many rolls/flips it takes to get the outcome you wanted? I guarantee in both cases, the probabilities on those rolls will hover around 25%/50% the entire time.

You will NEVER reach a stretch where the 25% outcome is hitting 0.002% of the time. I don't care how big or small your data set is, it will not happen.

It's clearly wildly inconsistent and you all glazing is just shameless gaslighting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/balatro/comments/1gwkol9/a_study_on_the_probability_of_wheel_of_fortune/

Even in this data set of only 400 wheels they lost about 15 in a row. Just because something very unlucky happened to you, no matter how large or small the data set, doesn't mean the game is rigged against you.

[ShadowDark3]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ----:

You will NEVER reach a stretch where the 25% outcome is hitting 0.002% of the time. I don't care how big or small your data set is, it will not happen.

It's clearly wildly inconsistent and you all glazing is just shameless gaslighting.

The 24-hour peak for this game is currently 28k players. Let's be extremely conservative and say that's everyone who played during the day. If each of those players had a 0.002% chance of missing all their wheels that's still about 6 people that we could expect it to happen to JUST TODAY. And there were undoubtedly many more than just the 28k who happened to be playing all at once.

You are not being gaslit. You just refuse to accept what statistics and probability are telling you. That's not entirely your fault; humans naturally struggle to understand RNG outcomes.

[Arancil]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ----:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย malogoss:

Start collecting data and prove your point. You'll be surprised.

Okay here is some data on my last 4 runs:

13 nopes at normal odds, 10 nopes at 50% odds, 0.002% chance, which is only about 125X less odds than stated LOL

Roll a d4 or flip a coin and tell me how many rolls/flips it takes to get the outcome you wanted? I guarantee in both cases, the probabilities on those rolls will hover around 25%/50% the entire time.

You will NEVER reach a stretch where the 25% outcome is hitting 0.002% of the time. I don't care how big or small your data set is, it will not happen.

It's clearly wildly inconsistent and you all glazing is just shameless gaslighting.

Roughly 1/250 births are twins. That's 0.4%. Despite that, I've met twins. That means the odds aren't 1/250, I'm being lied to. Now, let's discuss what we FEEL the actual percentage of twin births are!

[Dan]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ----:

...
It's clearly wildly inconsistent
...

Yep... that's random chance for you.

How dare reality shamelessly gaslight us like this!