Dummy Scrolling

*I am making this thread to avoid spamming other threads unrelated to the topic*

I am looking for someone who is able to explain the significance of dummy scrolling and how it actually affects the outcome of a scroll. Many people have claimed to me that dummy scrolling is the best way to scroll your gear when I have zero actual facts based off statistics that prove this so far. I am in no way "against" dummy scrolling, I am simply against claiming something as having affect without valid proof. From what I have learned about random chance is that no previous experiment or measurement has any affect on a future random event. @liomio brought up the idea of Regression Towards the Mean in the topic. But from what I have learned on this is that all Regression Towards the Mean states is that if a cluster of out-liars appears in a case than the next event or measurement has a better "chance" of being closer to the mean than the previous. In relation to dummy scrolling from what I understand is that this simply means if you fail a ton of scrolls, then your next scroll has a better "chance" of being closer to the average of that scroll. Now no one is arguing against this idea of Regression Towards the Mean, because it makes sense for what it is saying. But it also in no way states that future events have different "odds" in a completely random event. It actually disproves that Regression Towards the Mean actually affects future events.
This video explains this point very well if you are interested.

Spoiler: Regression Towards the Mean

Now I am back to my original point for making this thread. Could someone with a high understanding of statistics or dummy scrolling please speak on the topic, as to whether or not they believe it is just superstition or that dummy scrolling actually changes the odds of the scrolls you wish to use.

TLDR - Anyone who claims dummy scrolling works, please explain your reasoning with valid proof.

 

This pretty much sums up the phenomenon of dummy scrolling. Rather than thinking about it using Regression Towards the Mean, you should think of the Law of Large Numbers - that the larger the number of repeated trials for a "random" event (in this case, the passing/failing of a scroll), the closer to the "average expected outcome" you should get. The fact that you failed 9 10%s in a row does not increase the probability that the next 10% scroll will pass.

 

Yes this makes perfect sense the more times you repeat an event the more likely it is the event as a whole acts as the mean. I am just confused because many people claim dummy scrolling as a way of life when it simply does nothing in my opinion, until someone can give me proof. To reiterate my point, say you use 100 10% scrolls, and despite all odds, all 100 fail. Now yes that is extremely unlikely but it could theoretically happen. Now your 101st 10% scroll you use, has the same odds of working as the first one you used at a 10% chance.
*edit* And also say you use 10 more scrolls, these scroll are "expected" to behave averagely, meaning you are "expected" to see 1/10 pass at a 10% ratio, but in no way does this enhance or betters your odds of any of the next 10 scrolls you use passing. If you pass 5/10 of you next scrolls, you may claim this is a miracle and only worked because you dummy scrolled which is flawed logic in my opinion.
*From your post I assume you agree with me, am I correct in that assumption?

 

I agree with the statistical element of your statement, yes. However, what compels people to dummy scroll is that you're not using white scrolls at all for the vast majority of your scrolling (assuming you go by some variation of scrolling based on the Law of Large Numbers). In my experience, I scrolled 4 slots on a SCG, using 16 white scrolls. The entire process took over 150 10% scrolls (e.g. crossbow, 1h sword, etc.). I simply used the actual white scrolls whenever I felt like it would be statistically strange (an outlier) for the next scroll or several scrolls to also consecutively fail.

For me, it seems immensely more difficult to pull off 4/16 without ANY dummy scrolls than it is to do what I did - using the white scrolls only when, statistically, the pass-rate would fall below expected value if the next several scrolls failed. Of course I only have one recent sample to go by, but it should illustrate the point.

 

Yes I understand where you are coming from and why it might "feel" like dummy scrolling is helping you. But there are also countless cases of people I know of and personal experience which leads to the scrolls used after dummy scrolling not making people "feel" they were helped. And yes I am sure there are other cases just like yours, but for every case like yours, I find it hard to believe their isn't a case of someone else with an opposite outcome.

 

Personally i dont dummy scroll, but i understand why, after failing 5 30s, it really feels like the next one is gonna work (they never do f4)
I think some people dummy because of the thing where its a low really low chance to fail x amount of scrolls in a row, and therefore it feels like the next scroll has a higher success rate even though it still has the same rate as every other scroll, but i guess you never know if nexon programmed scrolls to have some illuminati rng where if you fail a bunch in a row the next one will have a higher chance to work
Then again if dummy scrolling works for people, why not do it, although its probably just luck

 

Dummy scrolling doesn't work, that's just a fact. You could fail 100 30% in a row and it won't change the outcome of the next 30% whatsoever. People do it because it makes them feel more confident, they think to themselves "well I just failed 5 60%, what are the odds of me failing another one". I wouldn't even call it a placebo effect, it's just a superstition.

 

Do you have evidence of this? I suggest that if you really want to know how scroll percentages work you should use a couple hundred of a certain % in one go and see the results

Also, there are different ways that people dummy; some work better than others, some worse. I know a guy who uses a large number of dummies (100+) per slot and is able to use a minimal amount of white scrolls. There's evidence that dummying with a large amount of scrolls can help achieve better results when, of course, done "correctly".

 

Dummy scrolling does not work, I'm not sure why people actually believe that it's a real thing O-o Each scroll has it's individual work rate. The reason why people believe that dummying works because they fool themselves in faulty math.

 

To all that say dummy scrolling doesn't work and it is "faulty" logic, where is your proof? How are you able to claim this? Have you tried before? Maybe your methods were not correct? I ask that you ask yourself these questions.

 

I base my claim in the coding of the game. Every % scroll works as it should and every scroll has its own individual work rate. Getting good or bad results in scrolling is all due to luck. Not sure what there is to prove? I think you think that dummying works is because of the social aspect that anything lucky is brought out in the light or than failures. When someone gets lucky and attached their luck to dummying, they don't tell you of all the other times that dummying has failed. It's why people love to brag about their best items but never tell you all th failed attempts before. There is absolutely no mathematical proof that dummying works. I think you need to prove to all of us that dummying works because the default logic is that dummying doesn't work besides a few people that "dummied" and got amazing items.

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but dummying does not work because of how each scroll's success rate is INDEPENDANT. If you want my proof, that's the proof!

 

Continuing on what Joey has said about the Law of Large Numbers. The more scrolls you use, the closer are you going to get to the expected value (in this case 0.1 or 10%). I think people are confusing overall scrolling success with the amount of white scrolls used. For example, if I were to pass every 10th scroll using a WS after failing 9 scrolls before that, I would have gone 10/10 using WS but 10/100 overall. It's just that 90/100 attempts are insignificant to my idea of success.

Dummy scrolling is just using statistical expectations to your advantage. Whether it works or not is a completely different thing.

 

But expecting anything to happen to your scrolls other than average is just incorrect. No matter what happens previously. It is faulty to expect that just because you had "bad luck" (dummy scrolling) that you should in turn have "better luck" or above avarage scrolling in your next few scrolls. The only thing you can "expect" from your scrolls ever is for them to act average, no matter what has happened previously. Idk this topic just triggers me I guess, cause it feels like I'm trying to explain evolution to a hardcore religious person. You can't claim a fact is wrong based of speculation.

 

I dont think anyone believes that dummy scrolling increases the chance of the scroll to pass?

 

Dummy scrolling assumes that your sequence of failed scrolls can influence the scroll you're about to use.

If you flip 6 coins, the probability of getting 5 heads and one tails is equally as likely as getting 5 heads and another heads, or any other 6 coin toss sequence. There is a probability to get a specific sequence of events but that cannot effect the singular outcome of the next coin flip (Or scroll being used).

AKA you're wasting your time unless you can somehow miraculously figure out the RNG in scrolling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

 

*Grabs Popcorn*

 

Like when u fail 22 60% in a row ...(at least they were pet jump)

 

I think there's still some misunderstanding from the "dummying does not work" camp. The vast majority of people who dummy scroll DO NOT think that we are going to have "better luck the next several scrolls" if we have failed an absurd number of scrolls beforehand.

Again, I go by the expectation that, given a large number of repeated, independent trials, the total number of scrolls passed should gradually approach the true, expected pass-rate. Sure, these are independent and randomly generated events - it is BECAUSE of this randomness that I can apply the Law of Large Numbers. You shouldn't mistake this reasoning to be one of "the next scroll has a higher probability to pass because of my previous x failures."

Also going off of Eli's post, you can think of dummy scrolling sessions in this way. There is a certain probability of achieving the sequence of 20 straight failed 10%s. There is also another probability of achieving the sequence at least 1 pass in 20 10% scrolls. The latter sequence has a higher probability of occurrence - it is because of this that I may think "okay maybe it might not be a bad idea to use a white scroll after 19 consecutive fails because the probability that the favorable sequence occurs is higher than the probability that the unfavorable sequence occurs."

Spoiler

Given independently and randomly generated outcomes using 10% scrolls, the probability that you fail 20 10%s out of 20 scrolls is (0.9)^20 = 0.1216.
The probability that you pass at least 1 10% scroll in a series of 20 10% scrolls is [1-(0.9)^20] = 0.8784.

87scrolling confirmed OuO.

 

Every scroll you use is completely mutually exclusive and nothing done before it will have any bearing on the chance of the success. You can fail tens of millions of 10% scrolls in a row and the next one will still only have a 10% chance of succeeding .

I really don't understand what people are missing here.

 

You seem to be trying to hammer home the idea that each and every 10% scroll's outcome is independent and random. I agree.
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not saying the probability of a scroll passing is changing as a result of dummying. I AM saying that the probability of a certain sequence of scroll passes/fails occurring makes a compelling case for me to dummy scroll. Though if you're unconvinced by my reasoning, then so be it - maybe you should try reading through peoples' posts thoroughly rather than simply skim over them and think "oh look another dumb dummy scroller."