Word of the prophet behavior looks like fleet-foot messenger

**desolationsailor** · 11-16-2013, 03:00 PM

Hi there.
I notice the following, in T1 of the Fizznaklock (me) Vs Drawing Dead, Nov 16 (around 14h GMT).

My initial draw had among other 1xWord of the prophet and 2xTainted Oralce, I casted the WoP and among other 2 I targeted 1xTO. For my surprise I got back the same TO. Note that I have only 2 TOs in my deck.

I know that it's possible, but look at the odds: My deck was 50+1 cards. 44 when caste the WoP (I was the 1st to play) 47 when draw the 3 cards, where the last one was the TO. (1/45)
I have noticed this behavior, but with less cards in deck and with cards with more copies. But this time was a big coincidence.

Have any one notice the same thing, or is just me?

**Airact** · 11-16-2013, 08:48 PM

So what's the bug?

You shuffle before you draw so you might just get the card you shuffled back.

**desolationsailor** · 11-16-2013, 11:58 PM

To get the 1 out off 45 it's possible, but is it pure bad luck?
I will be counting them, hope some else does it too (Or I will be seen as a mad man

**Jo3yb0i** · 11-17-2013, 12:15 AM

Seems like it's just luck

It happened to me also once before.

**Warr Byrd** · 11-17-2013, 12:19 AM

Hypergeometric distribution, population size (deck size when started drawing) 47, number of successes in population (TOs in deck) 1, sample size (cards drawn) 3. The odds of drawing TO are slightly better than 6%, which is more often than you might think. There is no indication of anything wrong with the shuffler. Even if the probability was less than 0.001%, one instance would not be indicative of anything.

**desolationsailor** · 11-20-2013, 06:49 PM

From the 16th to the 17th I have counted 4 same type occurrences with the same numbers (2 repeated cards, extracting 3 in a around 40c deck, get 1 from your hand) and 0 times cast 3 card exchange, get 3 diferent cards.

From the 18th to today I have counted 3 ocorrences with 0 repeated cards, and 0 ocorrences with repeated cards (in Turn 1).

Thankfully, the annoying 6% gone.

PS: the initial post would need a minor correction, but no longer makes sense to hit the blind man *

*It's a .pt expression