Pirate hideout fps percentage....scam

[Johnny B. Goode]

So let's start tracking it. Make a thread and everyone contributes. Pretty bad it takes this much effort to show this building was just an attempt by inno to make money. Let's see who actually gets 40%. 2 out of 20 so far in 5 days

Make money? I got it for free. (If you paid Diamonds or real money for one, then you have bigger problems than Inno's RNG.) Oh, and if you think I (or anyone else) is going to track this to test your flawed perspective, then you are living in fantasy land. You track it for a couple of months, then share your numbers. Nobody will care, but you might feel better.

EDIT: I just collected 3 Pirates' Hideouts. One of them I collected the city with the 5 Diamond button and forgot to look at the individual payout. On the other two, both paid out 40 FP. So consistently 100%. This completely backs up your claim of screwed up percentages. I mean, that's more than double what it's supposed to pay out!!!!!

 

[Ericness]

I love my Pirate Hideout. No complaints about the FP output AND my BG hits on it pretty consistently for an added bonus. Not bad at all for a freely acquired building.

I don't think the word "scam" applies here.

 

[My Push Account]

Can someone please fix the odds of fps payout on pirate hideout. It is ridiculous I have 4 hideouts and no fps for 3 days in a row. I thought this would be a good building to spend real money to get, but this thing is turning our to be a scam that is failing to deliver. I will be hesitant to spend any money on anything that looks to good to be true in the future.

Upon seeing the title of this thread, it was easy to predict who would have already posted a response and know that the statistic “experts” of the forum will have let you down in a consistent and predictive format. Some form of “your sample size is too small”, “you don’t understand how the math works”, “just track it until it matches”, “but what about the 100 collections before these”. Notably absent from any of their feedback is any contextualizing of the data you did present, limited as it may be. Most of the reasons given are either irrelevant or misguided in understanding. Nobody seems to want to spend the 15 minutes necessary to learn/re-learn binomial probabilities, or just find an online calculator.

The good news is that this is an incredibly straightforward calculation. The odds of 12 straight collections without FP hitting is .6^12 or about 1/500. Not great odds, about the same as getting a flush in poker, which in my book isn’t enough to definitively deem this a scam or necessarily broken, but probably enough that I’ll track mine for my own peace of mind. So, while I agree with the general conclusion of the others here, we got there in very different ways.

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

No you just seem to think that the OP will care about the numbers. The OP won't because no matter what you post it won't buy into what they already 'know'. And yes given how long they've had the hideout for why is it just now that they see a problem with the percentages? Unless they somehow bought the hideout just recently (as in less than a week ago) for them to have a run of bad results for such few days and cry 'scam' means there isn't much point to discussing how it actually works with them.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

No you just seem to think that the OP will care about the numbers. The OP won't because no matter what you post it won't buy into what they already 'know'. And yes given how long they've had the hideout for why is it just now that they see a problem with the percentages? Unless they somehow bought the hideout just recently (as in less than a week ago) for them to have a run of bad results for such few days and cry 'scam' means there isn't much point to discussing how it actually works with them.

Which is also why they need to collect the numbers themselves. Doing the work themselves is the only way to prove to themselves that their results are in line.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Upon seeing the title of this thread, it was easy to predict who would have already posted a response and know that the statistic “experts” of the forum will have let you down in a consistent and predictive format.

And it's also easy to predict that you'd show up at some point with your hogwash. Nobody here is an "expert", including you.

Notably absent from any of their feedback is any contextualizing of the data you did present, limited as it may be.

LOL. You mean like saying that such a small amount of data doesn't indicate anything due to the realities of RNGs? That sounds like contextualizing to me...and anyone else with a little common sense. Supporting a person's delusions isn't helping, so why don't you keep your binomial probabilities to yourself for a change. You're more tiresome than the people that start these threads.

 

[My Push Account]

And it's also easy to predict that you'd show up at some point with your hogwash. Nobody here is an "expert", including you.

Yeah, that annoying hogwash they call math. Apparently, nobody has time for that when you can just say something is wrong without backing it up. Feel free to challenge any numbers that I’ve provided, with your own.

LOL. You mean like saying that such a small amount of data doesn't indicate anything due to the realities of RNGs? That sounds like contextualizing to me...and anyone else with a little common sense.

Let‘s do a little thought exercise. Let’s say the probability was posted as 99.99% likely get FP. Same dude reels off 12 straight collections without FP. Concerned or Not Concerned?

Supporting a person's delusions isn't helping, so why don't you keep your binomial probabilities to yourself for a change. You're more tiresome than the people that start these threads.

I’ll promise to stop posting them, when you’ve mastered the subject and can properly address OP’s in the future with the actual faults in their data and/or conclusions. If you truly understood even an ounce of this topic, you’d know that you can never talk about RNG or the game probabilities without using the properties of binomial distribution as the core of practically everything.

 

[Goombah]

I have not been tracking it =- i.e. keeping statistics - but I have been clicking on it regularly to see what happens and it appears to me to be about 40% of the time that I get the forge points. I also like getting the production stuff and the medals, so I am happy with the building.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Yeah, that annoying hogwash they call math.

There isn't any math that can turn 12 collections into something relevant, so...

Let‘s do a little thought exercise. Let’s say the probability was posted as 99.99% likely get FP. Same dude reels off 12 straight collections without FP. Concerned or Not Concerned?

Or if it was posted as .01% and you got FP 12 straight times. I mean, seriously, how is such a hypothetical statement relevant?

I’ll promise to stop posting them, when you’ve mastered the subject and can properly address OP’s in the future with the actual faults in their data and/or conclusions.

Well, as has been repeatedly stated in such discussions, the LACK of data is the fault, and you've said nothing that refutes that, despite your illusions about math.

If you truly understood even an ounce of this topic, you’d know that you can never talk about RNG or the game probabilities without using the properties of binomial distribution as the core of practically everything.

Come back when you understand the concept of small sample size. Until then, you are as irrelevant as the OP's conclusions. Bye Felicia.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

So, let's examine the sample size recommendations so far:

> The OP needs to sample over "Lots of time". "Lots" is hardly a mathematical concept.

> The OP should collect data for a "few months". "Few", another fuzzy term that is not mathematical. However, it implies 360 to 480 data points (4 PHs x 90 days or 4 PHS x 120 days).

> The OP should collect 120,000 samples. Don't know where this number comes from but putting into perspective consider that Pfizer got the EUA for the Covid-19 vaccine after a clinical trial involving 46,331 participants. A decision that could impact 7.9 billion humans was based on a sample size 1/3 that suggested for testing the Pirate's Hideout.

> Even if the OP collected zero forge points for 365 days it is still possible for the PH to be producing as advertised (40%) if it produces forge points for the next 78 days. If the published FP payout is correct, the odds of going 365 days without a FP payout is 1 in a quintillion (that the numeral one followed by 81 zeros). That's for one PH...multiply time 4 if tracking four PHs.


So, it appears that the OP needs to collect "Lots" of data over a "few" months, somewhere between 360 and 120,000 data points are required. However, even if he goes 4 months without collecting a forge point it's still possible for the advertised stats to be correct so his data will still be suspect. What a hoot!

 

[Agent327]

I guess we have reached a conclusion.

OP knows what he needs to do and the resident statistics experts have once again taken a thread off topic.

Topic locked.