I’ve dabbled with this a bit:
I basically modeled my research after Garanwyn’s:
Only where he tracked 3-2, I tracked mono.
Unfortunately… I no longer have access to it, as all of my work is now locked up in a phone I can no longer access…
But, where he found 0 starting boards without tiles. I found 9. Collected the screenshots and continued my compilation.
Until… I got really bored of playing mono…
But the outcome after about 400 samples on my end was a graph that looked ALMOST like Garanwyn’s
Except my graph was shifted to the left (I did have 9 at 0, not all were mine, I had help)
and had a slightly steeper ascent. Which I believe was settling had I continued to add samples.
We got lots of data at 3-2 data. Some mono data
@Homaclese @gingerhuny
I think the lynchpin for this debate
Will be found in RAINBOW DATA
Bad boards for rainbow do exist! This happens when you suffer 4 rounds of only one 3-connect option. And usually experience the board reshuffling! Which is probably, what really needs to be counted…
I’ve been playing 2-2-1 for months now. And honestly, I don’t remember the last time I had a board reshuffle. If someone has the endurance to raid rainbow 500 times and compare how many times the board reshuffles vs mono. I would be very interested to see that comparison!
If there is a visible difference… I think that would lend some credibility to the rng code being tightened and loosened just as slot machines do.
Based on some “seed” tied to your account.