in the last 2 weeks i have failed 5 out 7 times when i have tried to invade planets. my success rate at the time on all of them was 90%. on all 5 of my losses the guy had no invasion defense at all or less then 600, and the planet i was attacking had less then 1k defense while i had 5k attack plus another 500 invasion attack. how is this possible? yes i understand all about probabilities but again 5 times out of 7 at 90% either the rates are wrong or i need more attack.

Or you are unlucky, as is the nature of an RNG. On the whole, the odds hold up. A string of bad luck doesn't counter that.

The rates may be wrong, but if you understand probabilities, then you know that 5 out of 7 has zero meaning. Each invasion is its own independent action. You could lose 7 out of 7 with 90% chance to win and it wouldn't mean that the 90% is in accurate.

It actually does mean something. Theres only about a .017% chance of that happening. (assuming success' were at 90). 7 fails would only be a .00001% chance. While a small sample that would be getting out there in chances.

No, you are wrong brother. This is why gambling establishments make billions each year. People continue to believe that "actions in a row" mean your chances are better or worse; but they are not. Each action is independent. It doesn't matter if you pull the slot 1 time, 100 times, or 1000 times. You haven't "warmed" up the machine or made it closer to a pay out. Give me a sec, I will post links for you from Vegas odds makers where they talk about all this stuff. In the mean time, here is my own simple example. If I have a deck of cards, and ask you to draw from it, you have a 1 in 52 chance. If I put your card back and shuffle it and ask you to draw from it, you still only have a 1 in 52 chance. The numbers only change if the card removed stays out (This is why card counters have the edge in Blackjack and why the House hates it. Card counting is not illegal, but you will get tossed out the moment they suspect you of doing it). Each planet invasion is an independent action.

You're both right, in a way.

Yes, the odds do not change for each independent action. Also, whilst the chance of succeeding never actually changes, the chance of never winning in a streak of 10 at 90% chance is 0.0000000001%. Whilst you're just as likely to fail each one, the chance of failing them all gets smaller and smaller.

like i said i do agree with each and every occurrence is its own probability but when those probabilities dont hold out thats when you know something is wrong thats how they test stuff. like i said i understand failing but its starting to be come common i didnt put on that on 4 base raids of 80% or higher i failed 3. so again its entirely possible its my luck and i understand that but if others are seeing the same stuff then dans algorithms may be off.

Never did I say that the odds are changed. Alls I said was there was a very low chance of that happening. Believe me I know how vegas makes money. Thats why I play poker.

Tb basically echoed what I was saying.

Lovely how everyone is mixing chances.... The chance to go 0 fer 10 is completely independent of the invasion chance. So you should be determining the 0fer chances based on Win or Lose. Therefore the chances of going 0 fer 10 would be 1 in 1024 or a 0.1% chance. A much more likely result and much more accurate considering the number of people that complain about this sort of thing happening to them.

Ummmmmm what?....

Either I'm misreading somewhere or you are saying the invasion chance doesn't affect the probability of failing ten it of ten times.

Essentially, yes. Mathematically, they are two separate entities. Using the x^n calculation that you all are erroneously using, 10 fails at 90% is 0.0000000001 or 1 in 10 BILLION. I find it highly unlikely that we would EVER see that in this game based on that calculation. But it HAS happened. Multiple times. Even if you only look at going 0 for 3, x^n gives a 1 in 1000 chance. Three straight 90% fails is A LOT more common than that. The only thing the invasion chance does is tell you whether you Win or you Lose, today. Nothing else. Go dig out the Dungeons & Dragons set and start rolling your d10 and write down the numbers. Betcha it doesn't take 10 billion rolls to get ten 1's in a row.

But that still would be the chances of it happening. if you rolled ten dice at a time ten trillion times you would only expect one of those times to be all ones. Thats whats EXPECTED. Not what will happen. It easily could happen a few times or never at all. in order to get an accurate sample for something with such a low percent chance of happening you'd have to do waaaay more trials. And no they are not separate entities at all. if you had only a 1% chance of success the chances that you would fail ten in a row would be about a 90%.

200,000 rolls. Only as long as 4 1s in a row, there were 2 sets of 9 zeroes, 1 set of 6 2s, 2 sets of 5 3s, 1 set of 6 4s, 15 sets of 4 5s, 3 sets of 5, 3 sets of 5 6s, 1 set of 5 7s, 1 set of 5 8s, 27 sets of 4 9s. Yes, I used random.org, not a d10 but whatever. You roll a die 200,000 times.

Here's the data:
http://pastebin.com/Tek2qHBt

Now, if I repeated this up to 1 billion, then maybe, MAYBE we would get a string of 1s, but I think that is enough to prove that 1 in 1024 is a bit off.

So yep. 1s are fails. There is, in that sample, a string of 5 fails in 7.

KJReed knows what he is talking about here.

Darth, you would only be correct if it was a 50% chance. Yes there are only 2 outcomes, but they have a bias chance of happening that you fail to include. Rolling a die would be completely erroneous to this example because it would be fair everything having an equal chance.

Since we seem to like bringing up Vegas in this thread, it's the equivalent of forgetting to factor in the green 0 on roulette.

So, I'm not going to rehash anything in my own words, it's already been stated correctly at least twice here.

and of course, the OP's sample size is just their portion of all the invasions that were attempted in that period, many of which WERE successful and 'balancing' the overall odds.

Using your math, if you attempt 10 invasions at 1%, you have a 10 percent chance of getting a successful invasion on the 10th try because you failed the first 9 in a row? Nice magic.

No no no no no. not what I said. The chance remains the same. Lets say in theory you had 9 postdoc generators. If you were to try ten different planets arty 1% chance there would be a 9.1 percent chance of you getting just one.

I'd you were to try 100 different ones there would be a37% chance of getting just one.

*SPLAT* There goes my brain.

Oh come on. I haven't even been showing the math. Plus I've kept it to one success.

*First, In shock that Darth and I are agreeing for the second time this decade.

Second, I do understand what you are saying KReed and TB. I follow your math as you study the phenomena from a larger perspective, but I still respectfully suggest you are making the same gambling fallacy that so many others make. People are tricked and are tempted to think that "if I pull the handle just one more time, I am bound to win, because hell I just lost the last 99 tries." It is absolutely not true. However, the persistence of that thought is exactly what the bosses want you to do. It is what makes people keep rolling the dice- the next one will be my winner, the next one will be my winner- but the house is laughing all the way to the bank. The only way the phenomena could present itself is when measured by astronomical numbers as Darth said. Gaming establishments figure that you will either be too broke or too discouraged to pull the handle 1 million times to finally tip the balance.