Can you at least read the thread so you don't talk about things that were resolved three centuries ago?
with their correct avg totals and all their requests:
=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 93
Prefix: 102
Ties: 5
Total Checks:
Sequential: 10311893
Prefix: 10599385
Average Success Rates:
Total Avg / Wins
Sequential(1 victory for each): 110880.57
Prefix(1 1 victory for each): 103915.54
I guess we're on our way to shit 10 pages of "why" after all. I thought the demonstration was over once the empirical tests converged to 50% to 50% operations.
This is exactly what I predicted will happen.
Are you sure about that? You'd just read the results wrong, ultimately. At which point your code is so specific, that it needs to go back to the general case. And so on.
Now, back to your code. In summary, you're testing which method finds the result
FASTER using a methodology that is relevant for a chess tourney or sports gambling. In a game of chess, you either win or lose, but it doesn't matter how good the opponent played.
Basically you are dismissing altogether the amount of work being performed, it only matters to you who got first to the solution, which makes no sense - because you're not factoring in how MUCH it took to get there.
The margins of when sequential wins compensate for the fewer wins, and honestly I have no idea what's the basis of that formula you applied, or what exactly it represents.
But thanks for at least fixing up the distribution issue. Maybe next time your replies to serious issues are not AI + LOLs, otherwise I can't really take you seriously - I'm just reflecting your attitude, at the end of the day.