There should be a record for the worst and best luck ever recorded in a game. I am calculating my own luck since I don't have premium and if I am correct, as of turn 12252 of the game http://www.wargear.net/games/view/587603 I am as lucky as a black cat spilling salt under a ladder with -74.50 luck (-47.20 attack, -27.30 defense).

This game has standard 6 sided dice with no bonuses. 

Has anyone had this bad of luck ever?

If I understand the luck stat correctly, it basically means I should have defeated 47 more units attacking and 27 more units defending than I did based on the probability of the outcome of the dice.

Because of my misfortune (or other people's fortune), one player has 48.2 luck (4.32 attack, 44.3 defense) of which 39.16 is from my misfortune attacking.

I can see your bad luck chart, and it says -74.6  (I can't believe you are calculating this by hand).

As you can imagine, this has come up before on the forums (not the idea of a formal record though - which would be cool).  I think the conesnsus was that you had to also take into account the # of dice rolls that you've had, because the way luck is calculated doesn't normalize for that, and you would expect to see more extreme luck values the longer the game goes on.  I'm not sure if there was an agreement on how to mathematically normalize for # of rolls.  

That's amazing.

This thread offer some earlier examples:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/4654/What_is_the_most_unlucky_game_that_you_won

Arguments about the luck of where and when you have poor rolls aside (for instance there are a number of boards where a few good rolls in the first few rounds gives one a significant advantage), ascertaining how unlucky your rolling was in a given game is quite a bit more complicated than quoting a Luck Stat.

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:luck_stats#interpreting_luck_stats

There are a few links to threads at the bottom of the page where this is discussed in detail.

Ozyman wrote:

I can see your bad luck chart, and it says -74.6  (I can't believe you are calculating this by hand).

As you can imagine, this has come up before on the forums (not the idea of a formal record though - which would be cool).  I think the conesnsus was that you had to also take into account the # of dice rolls that you've had, because the way luck is calculated doesn't normalize for that, and you would expect to see more extreme luck values the longer the game goes on.  I'm not sure if there was an agreement on how to mathematically normalize for # of rolls.  

I created a calculator in an excel workbook that imports the game log and extracts data from it to calculate the luck stats and kill/death counts against opponents.

Steve771 wrote:

I created a calculator in an excel workbook that imports the game log and extracts data from it to calculate the luck stats and kill/death counts against opponents.

That's awesome - I applaud

This one: http://www.wargear.net/games/player/591143

Look at my 2nd turn, even a calm guy like me had to rage post.

(those who never played Iwo Jima may not understand)

Lol, I can relate redshift. I can't play that board anymore due to frustration over terrible luck even though I like the board and it's design.  Getting dice like that anywhere in the first 4 turns is a killer.

Ozyman wrote:

I can see your bad luck chart, and it says -74.6  (I can't believe you are calculating this by hand).

As you can imagine, this has come up before on the forums (not the idea of a formal record though - which would be cool).  I think the conesnsus was that you had to also take into account the # of dice rolls that you've had, because the way luck is calculated doesn't normalize for that, and you would expect to see more extreme luck values the longer the game goes on.  I'm not sure if there was an agreement on how to mathematically normalize for # of rolls.  

Not sure if this has been purposed or not, but rather than normalizing to the number of rolls the it could be normalized to the number of  expected kills.

The luck value (correct me if I am wrong) basically tells you the difference of how many kills you have and how many kills you are expected to have based on the probability of the dice. If we take the total number of kills and substract the total luck value, we will get the total number of kills we expect to have. Dividing our total kills by the expected number of kills, subtracting one and then multiplying the result by 100 will give us the percent of how we are doing compared to expected.

For my case at the start of this thread, the result would be about -3.4. 

The  number will be high for the first few rolls but will settle after a few turns. Now true luck would consider scenarios in the game where a good roll is worth more in the overall outcome of a game depending on the circumstances. But this will at least show you what your luck is.

Perhaps a luck stat based on turns would give better information?

Of course, each turn has an impact on future turns  - it's really not correct to say the formula is a calculation of how many more troops should have survived or died when you realize you had 10 fewer or 10 more troops to attack with the next turn, depending on how you rolled. I don't know how one can accurately measure that cumulative impact.

Now, in factoring in the weighting of a specific turn, one could always use a standard fatigue formula, decreasing the importance (weighting) of each turn as the game progresses, but that would also be a flawed and gereric result.

Thingol wrote:

Lol, I can relate redshift. I can't play that board anymore due to frustration over terrible luck even though I like the board and it's design.  Getting dice like that anywhere in the first 4 turns is a killer.

Reminded me of my insane luck against you in Ravenloft when you said you can relate.

Losing so many attacks that in theory I should have won, in the same turn never happened to me. I was licking my lips thinking I'd put my opponent way behind in that turn and then boom, all fell apart.

Thingol wrote:

Of course, each turn has an impact on future turns  - it's really not correct to say the formula is a calculation of how many more troops should have survived or died when you realize you had 10 fewer or 10 more troops to attack with the next turn, depending on how you rolled. I don't know how one can accurately measure that cumulative impact.

Now, in factoring in the weighting of a specific turn, one could always use a standard fatigue formula, decreasing the importance (weighting) of each turn as the game progresses, but that would also be a flawed and gereric result.

Exactly, though usually the early turns are very important, there are critical turns later on as well. And this is speaking of the more RISK like boards. In some other boards it can be totally different.

-21 round one Civil War team game

redshift wrote:

This one: http://www.wargear.net/games/player/591143

Look at my 2nd turn, even a calm guy like me had to rage post.

(those who never played Iwo Jima may not understand)

I'm playing my first game on the board now and I have -40 luck stats so far, lol. Started hugely negative and then kept on going. But then it's only a private game against the board creator. 

I went -55 in a 3 player CW once.

Talking about bad luck in specific turns, I have one which is very hard to beat. Once lost a 14v1 in a tournament game on Project: Oblivion. The odds of that succeeding are so high, that Ozyman's calculator(http://prestopnik.com/wargear/index.html) just says Chance of Success: 1.

Looking elsewhere, the odds of success are calculated at 99.99983%

99.99983% means it should happen 1 in 600 000 times.

Litotes wrote:

99.99983% means it should happen 1 in 600 000 times.

..which is much much better odds than winning the lottery

Round one friends, they had 10 units to work with

Negative 55 round what Pratik?

Mad Bomber wrote: Negative 55 round what Pratik?

That was end game, so doesn't mean so much. I have an ongoing CW game where one of my opponents is -72. It's R34, but still -72 quite high.

Doesn't match your R1 score of -20. That's hard to beat on any board.

I was looking for a good place to share a recent game. Winner exceeds +100 luck stats. Mid-game, glarb is between a rock and a hard place . . . then all hell breaks loose . . . or something like that. I thought attacking with >20 armies gave me good odds, but they call it 'chance' for a reason. 

Luck Chart: http://www.wargear.net/games/luck/619333/luckchart
Game: http://www.wargear.net/games/view/619333

Enjoy