uggg, 64 bucks, and Bad Luck.

Sounds complicated DOHBoy! I grabbed this tidbit off the web.

Independent Events are not affected by previous events.

This is an important idea!

A coin does not "know" it came up heads before ...

.... each toss of a coin is a perfect isolated thing.


Example: You toss a coin and it comes up "Heads" three times ... what is the chance that the next toss will also be a "Head"?

The chance is simply ½ (or 0.5) just like ANY toss of the coin.

What it did in the past will not affect the current toss!


Some people think "it is overdue for a Tail", but really truly the next toss of the coin is totally independent of any previous tosses.

Saying "a Tail is due", or "just one more go, my luck is due" is called The Gambler's Fallacy

It sounds as if you and others here are suffering from the Gambler's Fallacy!

Do I really need to tell you how the world works? Of course the early adoptors pay more than the ones that hold out hoping for a price drop.

And currently they have been taking advantage of people with the RNG approach, I'm sure they have been making good money on people doing this. People are starting to buy less and less from the CM as they realize that they are not getting their money's worth buying packs. There is such a low chance to get the best items from the packs that they are purchasing. There are only a few things in the packs worth over a million credits. The rest won't sell for more than 200-300k. A lot will sell for under 20k. The value of what you're getting on average is much less than the money being spent to purchase. Of course this is already known and has been beaten like a dead horse.

But yes, while I'm sure Bioware has made ridiculous money off of a certain sub-set of people prone to problems with additiction via RNG/Gambling nature of the packs, Bioware will see less and less profit and will switch their model to allowing you to buy specific sets, toys, etc. rather than forcing you to go through gambling packs. At least, I hope. I USED to be one of those people throwing money at it hoping to increase my chances. I really feel for those that are still doing it, and hope that more and more boycott the CM until Bioware changes their business model.

It's apparent you don't understand this since EA is a business, a business's goal is to make money, and the Cartel market has done exactly that for them. It's not a coincidence. They know what they're doing. Which in turn, has allowed all of us to continue enjoying SWTOR!

'They' aren't taking advantage of anyone. People have a choice to buy or not. Don't blame EA for people's addictions.

That's interesting! Source?

I buy packs! Then turn around and sell them to get credits. I don't think I have a problem! I have disposable income and that's how I choose to spend it.

I'll take that bet!!!

Chances for the walker are still worse than for a rancor. Screw this, i am passing on this. I am too sane to spend 10 mil + on a mount. This is ridiculous.

You are missing the point.

each attempt is a uniform event 100000% agree never said otherwise. But what about the MATH are you missing.

The MORE attempts you make, the lower your "chances" of something NOT occurring.

If something has a 1% chance of occurring it has a 99% chance of NOT occurring.

So the odds/chances/possibility of something not occurring over a large number of INDEPENDENT attempts becomes very small it may take a LARGE number of attempts, but at some point given an infinite number of attempts it WILL happen.

Play the lottery long enough you WILL win, it may take 10,000 tries or 1 million tries or even 10 million tries.

the probability of getting an item (at least once) out of N tries is (1-(1-p)^n) where p is the probability of it occurring and N is the number of tries. so you can solve for N given a number p and assign a desired probability (how many tries before I have a 97% chance of p happening).

You are correct, each independent event has a set odds, same as rolling a dice (1/6) but you roll a dice long enough you WILL eventually roll all numbers on the dice, the more numbers on the dice, the more you have to roll it. Have a dice with 1 million faces, may take you 100 million tries, but you will eventually roll all the numbers on it.

it isn't complicated, try it start small and expand it.



so lets say we want a 97% chance of finding an item with .09% probability of occurring (rancor from the slot machines).

(1-(.991^n)) = 97% solve for N will tell you how many attempts would typically be necessary before you have a 97% chance of having won it. Or about 3895 tries Source

I'll just drop this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

DOHBoy your source was just a calculator!

Here's more from Wikipedia on The Gambler's Fallacy. See the section marked 'Other examples'. It basically states your chances actually GET WORSE the more you play. See below.

"There is another way to emphasize the fallacy. As already mentioned, the fallacy is built on the notion that previous failures indicate an increased probability of success on subsequent attempts. This is, in fact, the inverse of what actually happens, even on a fair chance of a successful event, given a set number of iterations. Assume a fair 16-sided die, where a win is defined as rolling a 1. Assume a player is given 16 rolls to obtain at least one win (1−Pr(rolling no 1's in 16 rolls)). The low winning odds are just to make the change in probability more noticeable.

However, assume now that the first roll was a loss (93.75% chance of that, 15⁄16). The player now only has 15 rolls left and, according to the fallacy, should have a higher chance of winning since one loss has occurred.

Simply by losing one toss the player's probability of winning dropped by 2 percentage points. By the time this reaches 5 losses (11 rolls left), his probability of winning on one of the remaining rolls will have dropped to ~50%. The player's odds for at least one win in those 16 rolls has not increased given a series of losses; his odds have decreased because he has fewer iterations left to win. In other words, the previous losses in no way contribute to the odds of the remaining attempts, but there are fewer remaining attempts to gain a win, which results in a lower probability of obtaining it.

we're all arguing about the same thing, he's just missing the next part of it.

Please point out which part of the law of large numbers has to do with this. I've done the same with the Gambler's Fallacy which indicates the more you lose, the lower your odds actually become at winning.

Appled to our example, the LLN simply states that if you have a 1% chance of winning, and are given 100 chances, on average you should expect to win once. Which I agree with! What it doesn't state is your chances of winning go up after a series of losses. Please show me where it says that.

I gave you the calculator to back up the math...its MATH, it isn't wrong.

What you are missing is the english of phrases like "chance, probability, odds'

DEFINITION: Probability of an event occurring is P(a)
DEFINITION: Probability of event 'a' NOT occurring is 1-P(a)

so those two definitions aside the probability of an event happening AT LEAST ONCE in N number of tries is EQUAL to the probability of an event NOT happening over N tries

(1-(1-P(a)^n))

so given 10 tries, 100, tries INFINITE number of tries is number that asymptotically approaches 1 at infinity it is EQUAL to one

so as I said before If you take the rancor (.09% chance) you have a 97% chance of having won a rancor after 3895 tries now thats STILL a 3% chance of NOT happening but 97% is still pretty good.

go up even further and after say 10,000 tries you have a 0.99987708929374531733496233288306 (1-(.991^10,000)) so 99.9877% chance of having won at least 1 rancor...now again thats still a .013% chance you WONT win, but pretty sure given 10,000 tries you'll have won a rancor.

now take that to infinity and it says 1.. I have a 100% chance WILL get one if I try an infinite number of times.

again, its math, nothing in there is a "feeling, belief, guess' that odds will improve. It is math. It is a scientific FACT, a law of the universe. Nothing you say or do will change the fact that the numbers are correct. not saying it WILL happen just that your odds are so infinitesimally small at some point that not having it occur becomes essentially zero.

Gamblers fallacy is over a small sample and is ENSURING a positive outcome given additional attempts.

give me an infinite amount of money and I will eventually.