"Simulation results - how two drop rates - 1 in 50 and no shiny at all could nicely explain the Ponyta/Cubone data"

#PokemonGO: Yesterday I reanalysed the data for the drop rate of Ponyta and Cubone and claimed that I believed that the true drop rate was indeed 1 in 50. I based this finding (among other more convoluted / less convincing work) mainly on a graph which depicted the average number of shiny found vs the average number of pokemon checked.​The graph based on the experimental data is here: https://imgur.com/gallery/xfJhdxB​Several posters here and from the TSR group who I respect a lot pointed out possible counter examples or reasons why my approach was flawed.​I therefore took the time and ran a simple simulation in Excel​I generated 1000 players and assigned a random number N of Pokemon checked10% got assigned a random number between 10-5015% got assigned a random number between 50-10030% got assigned a random number between 100-20015% got assigned a random number between 200-30030% got assigned a random number between 300-1000​I used these values as /u/titleist correctly pointed out that if everyone would check the same number of Pokemon than I would see a flat line. Not everyone reported the same numbers - but it wasn't random either - so I tried to mimic the distribution from the gathered data by generating a simple semi-random number of Pokemon checked.​I also generated a second random value x between 0% and 100%. This value indicates, which percentage of Pokemon checked where checked during the high chance.​I then calculated the number of shiny found:​Shiny found = N/50 * x​I then analysed the data the same way as the gathered data and plotted it. The resulting graph is here: https://ift.tt/2QwqRTv The result is strikingly similar to what I posted yesterday.​Why do I believe that this model (more or less) represents what really happened?​A single shiny odd is incappable to explain the data we have. Even assuming reporting bias - the occurrence of extreme p-values for individual data points is way too high to be explained with a single model.​2) It fits anecdotal reports about players getting shiny in waves / experience a zero shiny drop rate during the weather problems​3) It explains the outrage of some players who checked hundreds of Pokemon but got no shiny at all. Guys - you got cheated !!​4) It explains the 'luck' of some players who got multiple shiny Pokemon​5) Differences in Ponyta and Cubone odds can be explained if the times for 1 in 50 odds were not exactly the same and more play happened during Cubone enhanced odds​6) The model is using existing drop rates (1 in 50) and zero​The model isn't perfect and there are likely other models that might explain the same data. Actually this was my 4th attempt (that I kept). Two trials with rates of 1/50 and 1/500 did only work for 3+ shiny found but behaved very differently at the start of the plot. I only could get it working by changing the low drop rate to zero. An equal distribution of pokemon checked (0-1000) gets the right shape but the slope and intercept are off by a large margin.​I can't tell if a boosted drop rate combined with a zero drop rate was deliberate by Niantic or a bug. It certainly was frustrating for players as you had not a clue. Some might have spend hours to check shiny and had possibly zero chance to find any at all (at least during some of their effort). If you are one of them, then please do me a favour - up vote and ensure Niantic becomes whatever they did doesn't work fairly. Maybe it was a bug, maybe it gets improved. Only Niantic knows what really happened - but I would bet it is close to what I report here. Down voting just means you shoots the messenger and discourage him to spend time posting possible flaws.​For the sceptics around here I share my spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LFlx_Cahxvh-prQGv5zS_nSsyFhqOtKhgxwM5N6X1lY/edit?usp=sharing​It is model 4 that I use. Feel free to adapt it, improve on it. Come up with alternative narrative or a better one.​​I would like to give a shout-out to several travellers here who gave me great feedback yesterday and would like their opinion about this now improved model: /u/Titleist12 , /u/vlfph , /u/Dara54, /Exaskryz , /u/CaesarPT , /u/akcoug​​ via /r/TheSilphRoad https://ift.tt/2QrtsOA