The luck on the stat page is fucked anyway. It records average luck with no regard to the magnitude of the roll.

http://kdice.com/discussion/topics/44792696?

hisandherpes, I would be concerned if that was NOT the case: Ties lose, your average luck will end up being around 48.x% - this is normal and expected behaviour. Yes, it is "normal" for you - it's normal for everyone. Because ties lose when attacking.

The difference from 50% has only indirectly to do with the fact that ties go to defender.

The effect from attacking players and losing ties is usually negated by you defending when people attack you but get a tie.

There is an effect if you are an aggressive player and attack more than average.

The main reason why your luck% drops to about 49,2% on average is because there are grey lands on the board and they cannot attack you. So for grey lands the negative effect on luck isn't cancelled out by grey attacking you and getting a tie now and then.

The interesting part was that Monte has a PhD in Medical Physics and that that is supposed to proof anything about statistics. Are you more coming from the physical or the medical side of that business?

Honestly, and I know I'm contradicting my own conspiracy theories, but I'll step back from this statement at will, why would you spend the effort to manipulate rnd() in a pretty pointless online game where you can win exactly nothing? Of course it would be possible that the programmer sold little advantages to interested customers - but why would you pay when you can really gain nothing here? All points are gone on a monthly base and they don't feed you.

Physics people have to study statistics. Indeed, a lot of it, 'cause that's the only way you can make sense of your measurements (one measurement in itself is rarely definitive).

I think Pursey and jurgen both have a valid point, but I also found one of monte's argument intuitively compelling: "the major contributor to the site average of ~49% luck is the fact that luck is normalized per game, and not per roll. so when people have a terrible unlucky first round, they flag faster, and have a good portion of 30-45% luck games. however, the people that got terribly lucky against them in said games NEVER flag out fast with the corresponding 55-70% luck." Indeed shorter games with fewer rolls are bound to have larger fluctuations in luck, and games tend to be the shortest if you flag out early (due to bad luck). That being said, that would only contribute to lower than 50% overall luck if luck is really normalized (averaged) per game and shorter games with fewer rounds are not given lesser weight. (I'd need to observe luck figures for at least a day to see; but I'm lazy.)

Medical Phyiscs != Physics. Some of those do a lot of image recognition, not very statistic. And just because you do statistics doesn't mean you know the math behind it (no offense intended, just a general statement).

Other than that, I tend to pick up the conspiracies again after losing all day and hardly winning a +1 at all...

We live in the dystopian future, Louis. Some will do anything for the LOLs.

This is completely off here, but I believe even image recognition has something to do with statistics. The specificity and sensitivity of certain recognition techniques is indeed an important measure of their usefulness, and statistics is the key to testing either.

Medical phyisics is applied physics and no physicist is able to get away without at least a broad grasp of mathematics and statistics (especially at the PhD level).

I expected luck to average around 50% but it doesn't and I haven't found out why. Either a bug in some of the calculations or statistical nuance.

And FYI: the luck is averaged per roll rather than per game. So if you have one roll in one game with 10% luck and 100 rolls in another game with 50% luck your luck is (10*1 + 50*100) / 101 = 49.6

Ryan, it's not a bug. some "luck" just gets lost on grey lands (they can't attack back so they will never get negative luck from losing a tie when attacking).

Someone can reinforce that theory by sitting 100 games and never attacking. The luck% for that account should be about 50,7%