A Group for "Statistically Unlucky" people

All the best for your group... one question however, when they become more lucky do they get the kick?

Nice idea for a group! Only 3 and a half below my estimated wins, so I think I'll be passing now...

I certainly meet the requirements and would like an invite.

"we cant never have nice things"

since this EW ,people look it waaay to much

woot, I qualify! :)

Except I probably have too many ratio/chain groups as it is.

I don't think think I qualify but it's worth a shot

What's with all these unlucky groups popping up? :o Good luck anyways!

Nice idea ,hope it could help people :)

But I can't enter cuz you can see that my win number is higher than the estimated so... Good luck :)

Nice idea.

I'm way too lucky to join, and have no sense of decency anyway.

All the best with the group :)

Nice! I don't qualify in the least. And I am not decent.

But good luck with your group.

I think i apply to the logic of statistically unlucky? I am already in my own created unlucky group, and even in this group i am a very unlucky person. I would really like to join your group, in these hard times you need people that understand the feeling.

I'm too lucky to join but I think it's a cool idea. Good luck with the group! :D

Quite close, time to join more giveaways? ;D

Well, as I said in your other thread, I'm at 20 wins now and 12 below my expected wins, so I'm one of those people who are really lucky at being unlucky ;)

I think I apply... :D

I'll join if you don't mind.

Can you invite me?

add me plz :")

I qualify.

can i join? i lrdy enter 400+ Gievaway
and win only 4, 3 of them is massive giveaway (tryst, fairy solitaire, and galactic arm race) and the other is Giveaway with 18 people in it.

Group rules are not really mathematically sound. It would be more fair to work with an overall required negative deviation, in percentage, from the "estimated wins".

Simple example; Statistically a person with 2 wins and 6 estimated wins (not eligible) is more "unlucky" than a person with 40 wins and 45 estimated wins (eligible).

Of course there should also be a "cut-off" to avoid statistical anomalies resulting from a too small data set. The most effective way to do this would probably be to focus on overall entries rather than wins/estimated wins though.
An example could be to reject users with less than a few hundred entries.

Anywho, Im not eligible due to my contributor value, so none of the above affects me, just some quick thoughts.

Knock knock knock!
Who's there?
26 / 36.11

I qualify and I would appreciate an invite :)

Qualify.

Can I join?