Good luck! Try it. You sometimes need to go through games to find the right one. I always use the? I don? Someone let me know how to do it. I will post a screen shot of my stats. I have played 2, games and won It's a waste of time for me to just play any game.
This makes it a lot more fun. My winning percentage f4 would be higher, if my kids weren't playing solitaire and if I was a bit more carefull. Search In. Your Solitaire win percentage. Share More sharing options Followers 0. One move unveils 3 cards, which means a minimal of 8 times we draw from the deck, and 24 moves automatically on a card being put in the pile, adding up to 60 at a minimum.
This is where knowing the odds is important because professional solitaire players can quickly identify what hand has been given to them to start. Solitaire card games are something most people know of and find themselves playing it online a lot. There are various versions of solitaire, but the games are fun and they challenge people to think of winning it. Solitaire is a fun activity to do when burning time on the computer.
Play any of the many free solitaire card games and see where the odds of each card face takes you. You won coins.
Redeem Now! That is super-weird, and not something I've ever seen. What version of Windows are you on? That's pretty reasonable. For other game parameters the rate is much lower. I do tend to hit undo a lot, I'm pretty meticulous about trying all promising branches and like to think I only miss a few winable games.
Anyone know what percentage I miss? You might want to consider downloading a "Thoughtful Solitaire" program all cards visible if that's the game you like to play? Most of the time I'm like everybody else But several times each year I win three in a row, and once I won five in a row. What's that Divine interference? Anybody else? It's probabilistically almost certain to happen if you play enough games. Aristotle in The Rhetoric wrote: "One might perchance say this was probable -- That things improbable oft will hap to men For what is improbable does happen, and therefore it is probable that improbable things will happen.
Granted this, one might argue that 'what is improbable is probable'. Fact is that in a real game, a percentage of shuffles result in not a single play being possible. Get a real deck of cards and try it! Ergo, you are playing an assortment of selected shuffles residing in a database the selected ones having a reasonably large number of moves possible until you have reached a "sticking point. Obviously, the programmers are avoiding the moments of disappointment and "unfairness" created by the player being dead ended before a single card is played.
Much to my amazement, I can find not a single person who has set out to discover the size of the "selected shuffles" data base. All of the statistical analysis of shuffles on the internet completely miss the fact that the shuffles are all fixed.
The ONLY random process is the selection of which shuffle is loaded from the "playable shuffles" data base. I admit to having played enough games that I very often recognise the shuffle being offered, and correctly predict whether or not it is one that I can win. When stuck, I can frequently remember that the sticking point is due to such-and-such card being stuck in an inaccessible place, and it keeps on repeating every time I get that particular "shuffle" Also, I get shuffles where I immediately know "Oh this one is a very quick win.
Some people also complain that you can not replay a game. This is completely false. Just hold down Ctrl-Z and you will be returned to the start of your game in less than 2 seconds on my 5 year old laptop. Any game can easily be replayed for as many times as you have the patience I have the shuffles so well remembered at this point that the game is becoming boring for me. I will soon probably abandon playing Klondike because of the increasing predictability.
I doubt that the designers ever thought that anyone would play enough games for that to happen! I certainly never anticipated that the game could be "worn out", but if your memory works, it most definitely can happen. I must admit that I thought I'd seen games in the past where no moves could be made Theoretically it's 0.
You should only be seeing 1 such no-play event every 4, games I'd say you'd need to have something like , games on record to have solid evidence of that being the case? I can confirm as a tremendous coincidence that just tonight I got a game with no plays possible.
Screenshot linked below. I think the thing that bothers me with computer versions os solitaire is there are a lot of them out there and using computer generated games instead of using physical cards is you're relying on a programmer to reproduce the experience of using actual cards.
But programmers design the games with the idea of people continuing to use them, so it's in their best interest to have people win more often than you would with a deck of cards. I know I couldn't possibly do that well with cards. Since I'm good at solitaire, I'd rather have it replicate the experience with cards to make it harder, but I think most people would rather win more.
Interesting comments. I mostly F2 skip any game where I can't see opening play of the 2 right-most piles and one ace. I also Cntl-Z to try replays, but not to excess I don't have much patience.
Thanks for the insight! I disagree on "undo"'s being equivalent to Thoughtful Solitaire, though I do think tending toward approximately equivalent is logical but not knowing which one of the astronomically possible sequences are under the covered cards makes it only equivalent for winnable shuffles.
My conscious ability to predict 3 deal sequencing is limited but do think I will eventually be able project out about triple my current abilities. I strongly suspect the programmers have built the game to give specific shuffles depending on player behavior and that they collect that data for future revisions of the game. I'd suggest that the previous poster of the "repeated shuffles" and is "getting bored with the game" is the subject of a "test how quickly at what win rate a player will get bored" algorithm.
The number of possible playable shuffles is way too high IMO. Engineers of any sort are the badasses of our species, scientists the high priests. On on. Is it just my imagination or is there a high percentage of consecutive cards in the playing deck.
In other words, playing a red eight leaves a playable black seven showing. Mathematically, this should occur 1 out of 26 times, but seems to happen far more often. I haven't kept track, and I may just be noticing when it happens more than when it doesn't.
It's always nice to be able to play two cards in a row, but it seems far from random. Anyone else seeing this? Obviously, a work of remarkable effort. It appears to answer exactly the question that most ordinarily curious Klondike players want answered: What are the outcomes that a player who is consistently attentive, misses no possible moves, and uses the simplest logic in making choices should expect?
It is also really fast, which makes it useful for gathering reliably large data samples. My only regrets are that the number of game variations is not larger and frequency distribution tables of game outcomes no doubt exist but are not visible. Also, showing the frequency distributions for the numbers of cards winding up in the suit stacks could be useful. These distributions are curious. Thanks for the link; I'm pretty sure I have seen that before.
The results listed on the home page 8. I have my own solitaire simulator program that wins around 7. I do think there are some strategies that could improve my simulator's play. At one time I became obsessed with playing Vegas scoring, where you are only allowed one time through the deck, and are awarded points only if the card comes up from the foundation, so you need to put an ace on an available two before moving it in order to score.
I achieved the maximum number of points a few times out of hundreds and I do mean hundreds of games. So that is possible. But I don't think I'd play solitaire in a Vegas casino. That's for me more interesting than just starting a new game over and over I tried reading the paper, but I'm too far away from those lines of thinking to understand what they're talking about.
There seems to be some programming going around, but what is the big idea behind their approach to the question? The numbers you quote are for "Thoughtful Solitaire", i. Klondike Solitare where the positions of all 52 cards are known. In practice neither of those two options are practical. To deal with the excessive number of permutations, one approach would be to take a random sample and to use statistical techniques to provide steadily narrowing confidence intervals around the estimates as the sample gets bigger.
To deal with the excessive number of choices, you can apply heuristics which provide good methods for taking decisions without investigating every final result. Doing this trims the decision tree and so shortens the time needed to investigate different possibilities. But even then, the consequences of different decisions in the game can sometimes have such far reaching and complicated consequences that not all initial permutations can be found to be solvable or not within a reasonable time.
Ignoring those which do not produce a result quickly enough leads to the wide reported range for the probability. My version has infinite number of go rounds on the play stack no limit of three re-deals and draw 3 cards. The results are about one win in 5. The statistical sample set was millions of games played. This past weekend, I modified the program to try and solve deals. This is very small statistical sample set mind you. The real problem is, when a deal isn't solvable, it's taking the program hours and millions of tries to figure that out.
All of these results will be rendered moot when someone finds a bug in my program :. I put some statistics and the source code here if it interests you:.
0コメント