Ok this is coherent. Let’s agree on this. I agree that nobody can tell with 100% certainty on any sample size of one that has any random chance for more than one outcome.

Sinking into quicksand.
What is the difference then if the evade is 97%?

If confined to per hit, it should be yes or no only, 50%, no?

Just because there are only two possibilities, doesn't mean they are equally likely. There are only two possibilities, Sun comes up tomorrow, Sun doesn't come up tomorrow. But that's not 50%.

...

But to summarize, "odds" or "probability" is a way to express the fact that we don't know exactly what will happen, but we do know *something* about what will happen. We don't know if Black Widow will evade the next attack or not, but are aren't completely ignorant about the situation. We know it is far more likely that the attack won't be evaded than it will. The odds are just the numbers-way of expressing that knowledge with precision.

Thanks for replying. Just amused that you use the sun as an example. I was thinking if the sun rises ... wait the Sun is in a 'fixed' position?

Anyway, my view (or understanding) is that over large data, the 'averages' is x%. So, if there is 'inconsistent' occurrences, then something else is in the game mechanic (a bug?)? Is this correct?

Ok this is coherent. Let’s agree on this. I agree that nobody can tell with 100% certainty on any sample size of one that has any random chance for more than one outcome.

Sinking into quicksand.
What is the difference then if the evade is 97%?

If confined to per hit, it should be yes or no only, 50%, no?

Just because there are only two possibilities, doesn't mean they are equally likely. There are only two possibilities, Sun comes up tomorrow, Sun doesn't come up tomorrow. But that's not 50%.

...

But to summarize, "odds" or "probability" is a way to express the fact that we don't know exactly what will happen, but we do know *something* about what will happen. We don't know if Black Widow will evade the next attack or not, but are aren't completely ignorant about the situation. We know it is far more likely that the attack won't be evaded than it will. The odds are just the numbers-way of expressing that knowledge with precision.

Thanks for replying. Just amused that you use the sun as an example. I was thinking if the sun rises ... wait the Sun is in a 'fixed' position?

General relativity says the laws of physics honor no preferred frame of reference in the universe.

Anyway, my view (or understanding) is that over large data, the 'averages' is x%. So, if there is 'inconsistent' occurrences, then something else is in the game mechanic (a bug?)? Is this correct?

That depends on your definition of "inconsistent." Almost by definition, "randomness" implies inconsistency. For example, if you're observing something like a coin flip that is supposed to have a 50% chance to land heads or tails, then the sequence H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T has a 50% distribution, but is completely non-random. A genuine random generator will tend to generate almost any sequence with equal likelihood relative to other sequences of equal length. That means, counter-intuitively for most people, that H H H H T T T T happens just as often as H H T H T H T T. The second "looks more random" but it isn't. It is just that H H T H T H T T looks to human eyeballs similar to H T H H T H T T so we tend to lump those sequences all together, and because there are a lot of them they collectively come up more often.

This isn't strictly speaking correct, but for our purposes, randomness implies unpredictability. If we saw that every single set of 33 attacks against Black Widow included an evade, that level of consistently would actually be proof that the game wasn't properly triggering BW's evade randomly, and had been rigged to generate that rate of evade, using something like a streak breaker or a quota bucket. Genuinely random means sometimes you'll see a lot less evades than the averages predict, and sometimes you'll see a lot more. But the distribution of how often you see these deviations is itself something that is statistically predictable.

So what Kabamike is saying is that a champ with 97% chance to cause bleed on every hit could go 100 hits without causing a bleed once as the odds do not matter according to his post so what is the point of posting them if they are not verifiable. If someone could post a summoner with a black widow as profile I'll run thru five duels and keep track of evades and hits, if a couple of us would do that we should get a pretty large sample size, and possibly put the matter to rest.

So what Kabamike is saying is that a champ with 97% chance to cause bleed on every hit could go 100 hits without causing a bleed once as the odds do not matter according to his post so what is the point of posting them if they are not verifiable. If someone could post a summoner with a black widow as profile I'll run thru five duels and keep track of evades and hits, if a couple of us would do that we should get a pretty large sample size, and possibly put the matter to rest.

The statistical margin for error for such a test would be about the square root of the expected result. In other words, to have a reasonable confidence level (statistical measurements are never "certain") that you were roughly within 10% of the correct value, you'd need to perform a test where the expected result was about 100 evades (which would then have an estimated margin for error of about 10), which would require a test of about 3000 attacks.

This looks normal to me, unless I'm missing something. 3% Chance to Evade per hit does not mean she will only evade 3 out of 100 attacks, or even a guarantee that she would evade 1 in 1000. This is not how probability works. With a 3% chance per attack, there's a slim chance that you could throw 100 attacks, and she could evade each and every one of them.

It's best not to treat Black Widow like a Champion that can't evade. This is something I see come up a lot, but treat her the same way you treat Spider-Man, or Nightcrawler. Champions that can suppress Ability Accuracy, or negate Evasion (Ice-Man!) are great choices. I know that this isn't always possible in Dungeons, however, as you have your team of 3 and can't spy ahead.

Are you serious??? And if you are serious then tell me why does this probability don't works while opening crystals. We get only 4×4* champions from premium/100 premium if its probability is 4%

It's way worse with Ultron, especially in harder game modes or in Alliance War. There are times when he will evade several attacks in a row. Explain to me how that is even possible if he evades every 7 seconds.

Agreed he evaded 3 in a row for me yesterday it’s a joke, I feel like I’m fighting NC and I might as well be Edit: just realised this was posted almost 2 years ago my bad

This looks normal to me, unless I'm missing something. 3% Chance to Evade per hit does not mean she will only evade 3 out of 100 attacks, or even a guarantee that she would evade 1 in 1000. This is not how probability works. With a 3% chance per attack, there's a slim chance that you could throw 100 attacks, and she could evade each and every one of them.

It's best not to treat Black Widow like a Champion that can't evade. This is something I see come up a lot, but treat her the same way you treat Spider-Man, or Nightcrawler. Champions that can suppress Ability Accuracy, or negate Evasion (Ice-Man!) are great choices. I know that this isn't always possible in Dungeons, however, as you have your team of 3 and can't spy ahead.

A 3% chance to evade does not equal an evade every 2 to 4 hits. It means there’s a 97% chance to land every individual hit. Some of you don’t understand math and it shows. By that rate I should be rolling 6*s about 6 or 7 times out of every set of 10 cav crystals. Unless you add in the variable of being a brown noser or an idiot, your calculations shouldn’t be giving you the answer of “she gonna evade a LOT!”

Okay, I read the post, and y'all say Black Widow has a 3% chance to evade every attack. My problem is, I always thought it was 3% of some number.. so when it comes to evade champions, there is no 3% out of 100%?

My mind was thinking if it's 3% out of 100% then that means there should be a 97% chance she does not evade, but that's not how any of this works?

Okay, I read the post, and y'all say Black Widow has a 3% chance to evade every attack. My problem is, I always thought it was 3% of some number.. so when it comes to evade champions, there is no 3% out of 100%?

My mind was thinking if it's 3% out of 100% then that means there should be a 97% chance she does not evade, but that's not how any of this works?

You are correct. That is how it works. Don’t read the posts here because a lot of it is nonsense from people making up excuses and using their failed math class skills. You’ll end up losing brain cells. She evades more than 3% of the time. It’s 97% chance of landing a hit vs 3% chance of her evading it. It’s no more complicated than that.

Lmao imagine still thinking there’s a conspiracy behind BW’s evade. Y’all just be getting unlucky.

Imagine being so stupid and ignoring reality to win the love of kabam. But attempted to frame it as everybody is crazy and unlucky except you. Yeah you’re not a moron

When asked about the probability of a coin landing on heads, you would probably answer that the chance is ½ or 50%. Imagine that you toss that same coin 10 times. How many times would you expect it to land on heads? You might say, 50% of the time, or half of the 10 times. So you would expect it to land on heads 5 times. This is the theoretical probability.

The theoretical probability is what you expect to happen, but it isn't always what actually happens. Let's say you toss a coin 10 times and get following data: HEADS: 7 TAILS: 3 The experimental probability of landing on heads in this case is 70%

It actually landed on heads more times than we expected.

Now, we continue to toss the same coin for 50 total tosses. HEADS: 27 TAILS: 23 The experimental probability of landing on heads is 54%

The probability is still slightly higher than expected, but as more trials were conducted, the experimental probability became closer to the theoretical probability.

So, theoretical probability is what we expect to happen, where experimental probability is what actually happens when we try it out. As more trials are conducted, the experimental probability generally gets closer to the theoretical probability.

When asked about the probability of a coin landing on heads, you would probably answer that the chance is ½ or 50%. Imagine that you toss that same coin 10 times. How many times would you expect it to land on heads? You might say, 50% of the time, or half of the 10 times. So you would expect it to land on heads 5 times. This is the theoretical probability.

The theoretical probability is what you expect to happen, but it isn't always what actually happens. Let's say you toss a coin 10 times and get following data: HEADS: 7 TAILS: 3 The experimental probability of landing on heads in this case is 70%

It actually landed on heads more times than we expected.

Now, we continue to toss the same coin for 50 total tosses. HEADS: 27 TAILS: 23 The experimental probability of landing on heads is 54%

The probability is still slightly higher than expected, but as more trials were conducted, the experimental probability became closer to the theoretical probability.

So, theoretical probability is what we expect to happen, where experimental probability is what actually happens when we try it out. As more trials are conducted, the experimental probability generally gets closer to the theoretical probability.

This is not applicable. A quarter has 2 sides. That’s a 50% 50% per toss. We are talking a 97% 3% per toss. Not out of 10 or 20. Per toss.

When asked about the probability of a coin landing on heads, you would probably answer that the chance is ½ or 50%. Imagine that you toss that same coin 10 times. How many times would you expect it to land on heads? You might say, 50% of the time, or half of the 10 times. So you would expect it to land on heads 5 times. This is the theoretical probability.

The theoretical probability is what you expect to happen, but it isn't always what actually happens. Let's say you toss a coin 10 times and get following data: HEADS: 7 TAILS: 3 The experimental probability of landing on heads in this case is 70%

It actually landed on heads more times than we expected.

Now, we continue to toss the same coin for 50 total tosses. HEADS: 27 TAILS: 23 The experimental probability of landing on heads is 54%

The probability is still slightly higher than expected, but as more trials were conducted, the experimental probability became closer to the theoretical probability.

So, theoretical probability is what we expect to happen, where experimental probability is what actually happens when we try it out. As more trials are conducted, the experimental probability generally gets closer to the theoretical probability.

This is not applicable. A quarter has 2 sides. That’s a 50% 50% per toss. We are talking a 97% 3% per toss. Not out of 10 or 20. Per toss.

Totally applicable, just approaching different numbers. In this case you could have a 90% 10% split after 10 attacks. You could keep attacking and that number will eventually (theoretically) get closer to the theoretical split of 3% 97%

When asked about the probability of a coin landing on heads, you would probably answer that the chance is ½ or 50%. Imagine that you toss that same coin 10 times. How many times would you expect it to land on heads? You might say, 50% of the time, or half of the 10 times. So you would expect it to land on heads 5 times. This is the theoretical probability.

The theoretical probability is what you expect to happen, but it isn't always what actually happens. Let's say you toss a coin 10 times and get following data: HEADS: 7 TAILS: 3 The experimental probability of landing on heads in this case is 70%

It actually landed on heads more times than we expected.

Now, we continue to toss the same coin for 50 total tosses. HEADS: 27 TAILS: 23 The experimental probability of landing on heads is 54%

The probability is still slightly higher than expected, but as more trials were conducted, the experimental probability became closer to the theoretical probability.

So, theoretical probability is what we expect to happen, where experimental probability is what actually happens when we try it out. As more trials are conducted, the experimental probability generally gets closer to the theoretical probability.

This is not applicable. A quarter has 2 sides. That’s a 50% 50% per toss. We are talking a 97% 3% per toss. Not out of 10 or 20. Per toss.

Totally applicable, just approaching different numbers. In this case you could have a 90% 10% split after 10 attacks. You could keep attacking and that number will eventually (theoretically) get closer to the theoretical split of 3% 97%

That’s inconsistent rates then. The evade is a 3% chance per hit. Not 3 for every 100 hits. You’re over complicating simple percentages.

Dredging up posts from 2018 is Necrobumping, and that's not allowed. We're not starting this argument again. Take a look through if you must, because they're a lot of good info about Probabilities, but there's nothing deceptive about BW.

## Comments

5,336★★★★★Thanks for replying. Just amused that you use the sun as an example. I was thinking if the sun rises ... wait the Sun is in a 'fixed' position?

Anyway, my view (or understanding) is that over large data, the 'averages' is x%. So, if there is 'inconsistent' occurrences, then something else is in the game mechanic (a bug?)? Is this correct?

12,203GuardianGeneral relativity says the laws of physics honor no preferred frame of reference in the universe.

That depends on your definition of "inconsistent." Almost by definition, "randomness" implies inconsistency. For example, if you're observing something like a coin flip that is supposed to have a 50% chance to land heads or tails, then the sequence H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T has a 50% distribution, but is completely non-random. A genuine random generator will tend to generate almost any sequence with equal likelihood relative to other sequences of equal length. That means, counter-intuitively for most people, that H H H H T T T T happens just as often as H H T H T H T T. The second "looks more random" but it isn't. It is just that H H T H T H T T looks to human eyeballs similar to H T H H T H T T so we tend to lump those sequences all together, and because there are a lot of them they collectively come up more often.

This isn't strictly speaking correct, but for our purposes, randomness implies unpredictability. If we saw that every single set of 33 attacks against Black Widow included an evade, that level of consistently would actually be proof that the game wasn't properly triggering BW's evade randomly, and had been rigged to generate that rate of evade, using something like a streak breaker or a quota bucket. Genuinely random means sometimes you'll see a lot less evades than the averages predict, and sometimes you'll see a lot more. But the distribution of how often you see these deviations is itself something that is statistically predictable.

529★★12,203GuardianThe statistical margin for error for such a test would be about the square root of the expected result. In other words, to have a reasonable confidence level (statistical measurements are never "certain") that you were roughly within 10% of the correct value, you'd need to perform a test where the expected result was about 100 evades (which would then have an estimated margin for error of about 10), which would require a test of about 3000 attacks.

357★★When BW evades once every 5 hits and she’s got only a 3% chance 🙄

44★91★284★★1,731★★★★★Don't mind me.

1,691★★★★Edit: just realised this was posted almost 2 years ago my bad

322★★901★★★343★★★479★★★My mind was thinking if it's 3% out of 100% then that means there should be a 97% chance she does not evade, but that's not how any of this works?

2,404★★★★343★★★343★★★1,731★★★★★Imagine that you toss that same coin 10 times. How many times would you expect it to land on heads? You might say, 50% of the time, or half of the 10 times. So you would expect it to land on heads 5 times.

This is the theoretical probability.The

theoretical probabilityis what you expect to happen, but it isn't always what actually happens.Let's say you toss a coin 10 times and get following data:

HEADS: 7

TAILS: 3

The

experimental probabilityof landing on heads in this case is 70%It actually landed on heads more times than we expected.

Now, we continue to toss the same coin for 50 total tosses.

HEADS: 27

TAILS: 23

The

experimental probabilityof landing on heads is 54%The probability is still slightly higher than expected, but as more trials were conducted, the

experimental probabilitybecame closer to thetheoretical probability.So, theoretical probability is what we expect to happen, where experimental probability is what actually happens when we try it out. As more trials are conducted, the experimental probability generally gets closer to the theoretical probability.

343★★★2,957Guardian343★★★6,638Administrator ›