Topic: What percentage of solitaire games are winnable?
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc started this discussion 14 years ago #23,409
Klondike solitaire. I can't find an answer.
My guess is it's 15-20%.
My guess is it's 15-20%.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #365,849
12%
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,851
13.5%
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,852
15%
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,855
Anywhere from 2.5 to 10 percent of all Klondike games are unsolvable.
http://www.techuser.net/klondikeprob.html
http://www.techuser.net/klondikeprob.html
Some players might be surprised by the above numbers. These numbers imply that majority of Klondike games are winnable; however, experience playing the game indicates otherwise. The reason players do not win majority of Klondike games is mainly the tremendous amount of guesswork involved in playing Klondike. A few wrong moves can easily make a player lose and this is what happens most of the time.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,856
38, almost 40
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 14 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,857
from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klondike_%28solitaire%29
For a "standard" game of Klondike of the forms Draw 3, Re-Deal Infinite, and Win 52, the number of possible hands is over 7,000 trillion. Between 82-91.5% are winnable, but people do not win 80% of the games they start, because they make a wrong move somewhere and lose the game prematurely. The number of "unwinnable" games is therefore between 8.5-18%, but there are also "unplayable" games in which no cards can be moved to the foundations even at the start of the game, which occur in only 0.25% of hands dealt.
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 11 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,858
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,859
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 58 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,860
@365,857 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
It should be possible to roughly guesstimate what percentage can realistically be won given the amount of chance and "wrong" moves. I'm surprised there's not a better answer out there.
It should be possible to roughly guesstimate what percentage can realistically be won given the amount of chance and "wrong" moves. I'm surprised there's not a better answer out there.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 59 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,861
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,863
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
When I used Adderall, I was obsessed with keeping a spreadsheet and running probabilities of winning based on the cards shown at the beginning. I'd play computer solitaire for hours on end.
When I used Adderall, I was obsessed with keeping a spreadsheet and running probabilities of winning based on the cards shown at the beginning. I'd play computer solitaire for hours on end.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 44 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,864
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 24 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,866
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,868
@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
actually i think the law is a little fuzzy on this. pretty sure my ten thousand fuzzy bucks are money in the bank.
not bad for a 50 dollar buy in, no?
actually i think the law is a little fuzzy on this. pretty sure my ten thousand fuzzy bucks are money in the bank.
not bad for a 50 dollar buy in, no?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 21 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,869
Based on my experience, 0%.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 59 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,871
@365,860 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
This will help you understand why there is not a better answer. (2 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLIvwtIuC3Y
This will help you understand why there is not a better answer. (2 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLIvwtIuC3Y
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 49 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,872
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,873
@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
Fine, I'll sum it up in one sentence. The numbers in order to give and accurate probability are simply too large, all the super computers in the world couldn't solve it a thousand years.
Fine, I'll sum it up in one sentence. The numbers in order to give and accurate probability are simply too large, all the super computers in the world couldn't solve it a thousand years.
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,875
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 30 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #365,876
@365,873 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Correction: the supercomputers that could solve it are busy brute forcing activists' data.
Correction: the supercomputers that could solve it are busy brute forcing activists' data.
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #365,923
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #365,924
@365,875 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
Calculus cannot solve that which is unsolvable.
http://www.techuser.net/klondikeprob.html
"not all Klondike games are solvable. Moreover, Klondike sometimes produces unplayable games."
10 million Klondike games. A total of 24,893 unplayable games were reported by the simulation. This gives 0.0025 (rounded to two significant figures) as an estimate of the probability of occurrence of unplayable games. This estimate suggests that on average 0.25 percent (one out of 400) of all Klondike games are unplayable.
As mentioned earlier, the probability of unplayable games is a lower bound for the probability of unsolvable games. All unplayable games are unsolvable, but some initially playable games are unsolvable as well. Many Klondike games allow some initial moves but then run out of possible moves. It is hard to estimate the probability of unsolvable games but a reasonable estimate would be 10-40 times the probability of unplayable games. This suggests that anywhere from 2.5 to 10 percent of all Klondike games are unsolvable.
Some players might be surprised by the above numbers. These numbers imply that majority of Klondike games are winnable; however, experience playing the game indicates otherwise.
The reason players do not win majority of Klondike games is mainly the tremendous amount of guesswork involved in playing Klondike.
A few wrong moves can easily make a player lose and this is what happens most of the time.
Calculus cannot solve that which is unsolvable.
http://www.techuser.net/klondikeprob.html
"not all Klondike games are solvable. Moreover, Klondike sometimes produces unplayable games."
10 million Klondike games. A total of 24,893 unplayable games were reported by the simulation. This gives 0.0025 (rounded to two significant figures) as an estimate of the probability of occurrence of unplayable games. This estimate suggests that on average 0.25 percent (one out of 400) of all Klondike games are unplayable.
As mentioned earlier, the probability of unplayable games is a lower bound for the probability of unsolvable games. All unplayable games are unsolvable, but some initially playable games are unsolvable as well. Many Klondike games allow some initial moves but then run out of possible moves. It is hard to estimate the probability of unsolvable games but a reasonable estimate would be 10-40 times the probability of unplayable games. This suggests that anywhere from 2.5 to 10 percent of all Klondike games are unsolvable.
Some players might be surprised by the above numbers. These numbers imply that majority of Klondike games are winnable; however, experience playing the game indicates otherwise.
The reason players do not win majority of Klondike games is mainly the tremendous amount of guesswork involved in playing Klondike.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #365,943
Nerds.
Anonymous L (you) joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #365,948
Currently, I have won 50% of the games I have played. (82)
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #365,951
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #365,964
@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
not that hard to believe becky, i'm at 60% over 2000 games or more. it's easy, just don't mess up early on and you're fine.
not that hard to believe becky, i'm at 60% over 2000 games or more. it's easy, just don't mess up early on and you're fine.
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 37 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #365,965
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #365,967
@previous (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
i'm just giving becky a hard time. i don't play 2d games.
i'm just giving becky a hard time. i don't play 2d games.
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #365,972
@365,951 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)Agree. If he was telling the truth, he would be to rich to use MC
Talents convertible to:
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,135
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,183
PLAYED 9 WON 5 = 55%
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,188
@OP
have you ever played the microsoft tinker puzzle game?
have you ever played the microsoft tinker puzzle game?
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,191
Anonymous N replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,192
@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
try it! its free
info; http://www.microsoft.com/games/en-us/Games/Pages/tinker.aspx
download; http://games.softpedia.com/progDownload/Tinker-Download-55437.html
try it! its free
info; http://www.microsoft.com/games/en-us/Games/Pages/tinker.aspx
download; http://games.softpedia.com/progDownload/Tinker-Download-55437.html
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,206
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,215
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,329
Anonymous M replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,338
One
henn joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #366,342
Two
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 days later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #367,345
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #367,391
@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
Probably quite a bit.
In draw-three, there are fifteen cards (seven face-up cards on the stacks and eight cards that you will draw as you go through the deck) that will be available to use at minimum. As you play cards, you open up other cards on the table or in the deck. While you don't have any empty stacks, you will have seven playable spaces on the table and eight (less as you play cards and the deck empties out) cards in the deck available to use. If at any point none of these fifteen cards (less as the game goes on) go together to make a play, you lose.
In draw-one, you have still have seven available cards on the table, but all of the twenty-four remaining cards in the deck are available to you to make plays as you go through the deck.
That's matching seven cards against eight to make plays in draw-three vs. matching seven cards against twenty-four in draw one. The probability of getting the necessary cards to make useful plays that advance the game should be much higher in draw-one.
Probably quite a bit.
In draw-three, there are fifteen cards (seven face-up cards on the stacks and eight cards that you will draw as you go through the deck) that will be available to use at minimum. As you play cards, you open up other cards on the table or in the deck. While you don't have any empty stacks, you will have seven playable spaces on the table and eight (less as you play cards and the deck empties out) cards in the deck available to use. If at any point none of these fifteen cards (less as the game goes on) go together to make a play, you lose.
In draw-one, you have still have seven available cards on the table, but all of the twenty-four remaining cards in the deck are available to you to make plays as you go through the deck.
That's matching seven cards against eight to make plays in draw-three vs. matching seven cards against twenty-four in draw one. The probability of getting the necessary cards to make useful plays that advance the game should be much higher in draw-one.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Anonymous O replied with this 14 years ago, 10 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #367,539
beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 years later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #626,960
Bots still read this topic!
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 years after the original post[^] [v] #626,970
@OP
Just play every possible game of solitaire and work it out from that.
Just play every possible game of solitaire and work it out from that.
beckyderp !yDoooooooo (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 1 year later, 4 years after the original post[^] [v] #793,928
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 years after the original post[^] [v] #793,947
Say, does anyone know the numbers of possible ways that ANY player of poker gets, say, a full house on the first deal, using a single deck and simple dealing of 5 cards to each player? I've long ago found counts for all the kinds of poker hands for dealing one hand, but nothing about possible ways (or probabilities) for the various hands to appear for ANY player on first deal.
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 years after the original post[^] [v] #793,948
I got's A sudden, deep inhalation of air accompanie'd with an open mouth, tightened cheek muscles, eye closure and tearing
Anonymous Q replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 years after the original post[^] [v] #793,976
@793,947 (Sheila LaBoof)
By "any" do you mean the probability that any one player will end up with a particular hand or the probability that at least one player will end up with a given hand?
By "any" do you mean the probability that any one player will end up with a particular hand or the probability that at least one player will end up with a given hand?
mordor !!oeyGWt/PP replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 years after the original post[^] [v] #793,977
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 9 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 years after the original post[^] [v] #793,984
@793,976 (Q)
I am more interested in "at least one player". Of secondary curiousity is "exactly one player", "exactly two players", and so on.
I am more interested in "at least one player". Of secondary curiousity is "exactly one player", "exactly two players", and so on.
Anonymous I replied with this 9 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 years after the original post[^] [v] #794,017
@365,863 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
> When I used Adderall, I was obsessed with keeping a spreadsheet and running probabilities of winning based on the cards shown at the beginning. I'd play computer solitaire for hours on end.
lol nerd
> When I used Adderall, I was obsessed with keeping a spreadsheet and running probabilities of winning based on the cards shown at the beginning. I'd play computer solitaire for hours on end.
lol nerd
Anonymous I double-posted this 9 years ago, 50 seconds later, 4 years after the original post[^] [v] #794,018
Anonymous Q replied with this 9 years ago, 21 minutes later, 4 years after the original post[^] [v] #794,022
beckyderp !3NeoVaGFAg (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 2 years later, 7 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,070,136
bots :^)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 7 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,070,380
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,070,415
i liked this draad