i play a LOT of Hearthstone and iam still thinking about one thing. I feel that a little bit too often i see mage´s (fortunately this happens to me also) play mana wyrm into frost bolt or unstable portal, it even might be some algorythmic glitch or something. Does anyone feel the same?
i play a LOT of Hearthstone and iam still thinking about one thing. I feel that a little bit too often i see mage´s (fortunately this happens to me also) play mana wyrm into frost bolt or unstable portal, it even might be some algorythmic glitch or something. Does anyone feel the same?
The hard part for mage is to get the Wyrm, he will in 99% cases have spell to follow up considering the state of the deck ;-)
The so called "tempo mage" deck plays a huge amount of spells (Frostbolt, Unstable Portal, Flamecannon, Arcane Missiles, Mirror Image) so it always has at least one in it's starting hand. In addition, the deck's low curve allows it to mulligan very aggressively to find that Mana Wyrm, which is the only unique card it needs for that explosive start.
Therefore, although in most other cases i'd say "it's selective memory", in this case the deck is actually built to maximize the percentage of games where it can get that kind of an opening.
They usually run 2 of each of those cards which is 6 cards in total; which is a fifth of the deck- it can't be that hard to get the cards.
Also they probably get those cards once every couple games however you only see them play the one, and so you are more likely to see them play these cards.
The confirmation bias is strong in this one! If you want evidence to support that there is no secret algorithm or RNG manipulation, just try and focus on games that tempo mage DOESN'T get wyrm into 2 mana spell and count those. As others have said, its very easy to get a 1-2 mana spell, so the only hard part is trying to get a wyrm. ~25% going first, ~33% going second.
The confirmation bias is strong in this one! If you want evidence to support that there is no secret algorithm or RNG manipulation, just try and focus on games that tempo mage DOESN'T get wyrm into 2 mana spell and count those. As others have said, its very easy to get a 1-2 mana spell, so the only hard part is trying to get a wyrm. ~25% going first, ~33% going second.
The numbers in that article cannot possibly be right. As a simple example, it mentions the odds of getting a specific card in your opening hand before mulligan is 3.7%, which would be close to the truth if you were drawing 1 card...
When going first if you're willing to mulligan any non-Mana Wyrm card the odds of getting at least one on your first turn are 41.25%, while when going second the number becomes 50.98% bringing the average to 46.12%. Not that small a number.
The confirmation bias is strong in this one! If you want evidence to support that there is no secret algorithm or RNG manipulation, just try and focus on games that tempo mage DOESN'T get wyrm into 2 mana spell and count those. As others have said, its very easy to get a 1-2 mana spell, so the only hard part is trying to get a wyrm. ~25% going first, ~33% going second.
The numbers in that article cannot possibly be right. As a simple example, it mentions the odds of getting a specific card in your opening hand before mulligan is 3.7%, which would be close to the truth if you were drawing 1 card...
When going first if you're willing to mulligan any non-Mana Wyrm card the odds of getting at least one on your first turn are 41.25%, while when going second the number becomes 50.98% bringing the average to 46.12%. Not that small a number.
You have to account for the second column in the table, which is the number of instances, so the very first row is 0 mull, 1 card exists (i.e. legendary), 3.7%. I found that article more interesting because you can modify how aggressively you mulligan, and you can count more than 2 instances (e.g. the 2 mana spells there might be 6-8 spells you will mulligan for).
I recall seeing a different table that just had the odds of finding 1 card (assuming you had a pair in the deck) and how far into the deck you have to go to find it, numbers like the ones you provided and all the way to a 99.9% chance you will hit one in the first 28 cards. There is some added probability from just starting your first turn and drawing a new card (which is an extra 7%), so I think we are both correct. This table just limits the study to your starting hand with mulligans, not accounting for any turns.
Can you provide a source/math for your numbers? I am curious if they differ very strongly (beyond the turn 1+ card drawing %s), I am going to run through the stats myself.
If you're looking for a single card in your whole deck, the chance of it being in your starting hand even before you mull is equal to 1 - (29/30 x 28/29 x 27/28) = 0.1 or 10% which makes sence since you've drawn 3 out of 30 cards. Unless i am mistaken, that 3.7% can be linked to nothing other than bad math,
Edit: Generally the usual way to calculate the chance of having a card under specific circumstances is 100% - (% it's not your first card x % it's not your second card x ...).
In the context of the table, the card you desire isn't in your hand at the mulligan phase ("# = number of desired cards in your deck")
Hence if you are going first, you want 1 card from your deck and mulligan none of the cards in your hand, then the probability you draw that one card is 1/26 = 3.7%.
The table gives probabilities conditional on the mulligan (which makes sense since you aren't going to mulligan away the cards you desire) hence "mulligan math"
Thanks, that makes it clear. The math on that table are correct after all, what it represents though is not what we needed in this situation. It accounts for the chance you get a card from a mulligan, rather than the total chance of having the card on turn one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone,
i play a LOT of Hearthstone and iam still thinking about one thing. I feel that a little bit too often i see mage´s (fortunately this happens to me also) play mana wyrm into frost bolt or unstable portal, it even might be some algorythmic glitch or something. Does anyone feel the same?
IKR! there is that glitch that sometimes my opponent gets perfect rng.
The hard part for mage is to get the Wyrm, he will in 99% cases have spell to follow up considering the state of the deck ;-)
- Click Here To Join Us On Discord! -
The so called "tempo mage" deck plays a huge amount of spells (Frostbolt, Unstable Portal, Flamecannon, Arcane Missiles, Mirror Image) so it always has at least one in it's starting hand. In addition, the deck's low curve allows it to mulligan very aggressively to find that Mana Wyrm, which is the only unique card it needs for that explosive start.
Therefore, although in most other cases i'd say "it's selective memory", in this case the deck is actually built to maximize the percentage of games where it can get that kind of an opening.
They usually run 2 of each of those cards which is 6 cards in total; which is a fifth of the deck- it can't be that hard to get the cards.
Also they probably get those cards once every couple games however you only see them play the one, and so you are more likely to see them play these cards.
Favorite Card:
Tree of Life
Favorite Card Animation :
Vol'jin or Twisting Nether
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Roborohan's Custom Card Collection~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meh, leave it to the hearthstone pros to abuse spells meant for beginners.
The confirmation bias is strong in this one! If you want evidence to support that there is no secret algorithm or RNG manipulation, just try and focus on games that tempo mage DOESN'T get wyrm into 2 mana spell and count those. As others have said, its very easy to get a 1-2 mana spell, so the only hard part is trying to get a wyrm. ~25% going first, ~33% going second.
http://ihearthu.com/mulligan-math-what-are-the-odds/
The numbers in that article cannot possibly be right. As a simple example, it mentions the odds of getting a specific card in your opening hand before mulligan is 3.7%, which would be close to the truth if you were drawing 1 card...
When going first if you're willing to mulligan any non-Mana Wyrm card the odds of getting at least one on your first turn are 41.25%, while when going second the number becomes 50.98% bringing the average to 46.12%. Not that small a number.
Any card can be good. No card is restricted to pros smh -_-
PRAISE THE SUN!
\[T]/\[T]/\[T]/\[T]/\[T]/\[T]/\[T]/\[T]/\[T]/\[T]/\[T]/
You have to account for the second column in the table, which is the number of instances, so the very first row is 0 mull, 1 card exists (i.e. legendary), 3.7%. I found that article more interesting because you can modify how aggressively you mulligan, and you can count more than 2 instances (e.g. the 2 mana spells there might be 6-8 spells you will mulligan for).
I recall seeing a different table that just had the odds of finding 1 card (assuming you had a pair in the deck) and how far into the deck you have to go to find it, numbers like the ones you provided and all the way to a 99.9% chance you will hit one in the first 28 cards. There is some added probability from just starting your first turn and drawing a new card (which is an extra 7%), so I think we are both correct. This table just limits the study to your starting hand with mulligans, not accounting for any turns.
Can you provide a source/math for your numbers? I am curious if they differ very strongly (beyond the turn 1+ card drawing %s), I am going to run through the stats myself.
If you're looking for a single card in your whole deck, the chance of it being in your starting hand even before you mull is equal to
1 - (29/30 x 28/29 x 27/28) = 0.1 or 10% which makes sence since you've drawn 3 out of 30 cards. Unless i am mistaken, that 3.7% can be linked to nothing other than bad math,
Edit: Generally the usual way to calculate the chance of having a card under specific circumstances is
100% - (% it's not your first card x % it's not your second card x ...).
Thanks, that makes it clear. The math on that table are correct after all, what it represents though is not what we needed in this situation.
It accounts for the chance you get a card from a mulligan, rather than the total chance of having the card on turn one.