Quote from: Jls. on September 30, 2013, 07:39:29 PM

Quote from: mechs on September 30, 2013, 07:16:07 PM

Quote from: chriswen on September 30, 2013, 07:11:45 PM

Quote from: Keyser Soze on September 30, 2013, 05:58:46 PM

Quote from: mechs on September 30, 2013, 05:15:23 PM

The site so far has had 145,551,114 bets and cumulative luck for all players is at 100.49%. This seems like a large enough sample size that it should be converging on 100%. With a 1% edge assuming the most common bet is a 2x 49.5% bet, it would seem a player luck of 100.49% essentially means a historical house edge of 0.51%. Is that logic correct? If so, is this a probable result with a 1% house edge?

If I understand things correctly, the luck percentage has the house edge built in already.

Quote from: Just-Dice FAQ

The luck percentage displayed shows how many rolls you have won compared to how many you 'should' have won.

The luck percentage should, over time, be very close to 100%.

Really? I think luck is supposed to approach around 101%. Dooglus made a comment about it being above 101% before.

I thought luck is deviation from expected results. So with enough wagers, it invariably trend towards 100% It is not take into account bet sizes, only outcomes so it should have minimal effect from variance. It is a good test of how well the RNG is working.
I feel like after 146 million wagers, a player luck of 100.49% seems high. Not sure how one would go about testing that.

If I remember well, doog explained once that the luck % had been boosted by numerous successful very low odds bets.

Variance. Variance everywhere !

That makes sense with 1 million bets, not with nearly 150 million