Talk:Wintersday Chest

more information about things like this next time plz...
pah...yes its my fault that i didn't know anything about this chest, but i did the wintersday quests last year, and there was not such a chest spawning at the end...also didn't know that one spawned in the slots dungeon. —Zerpha The Improver 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the drop list added by Snipey lizard is not consistent with the other data. Total of his drops = 180/40 chests=4.5, and it should be 5. Strike it out?--Fighterdoken 22:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Totals
I've changed the totals (and associated percentages) to account for, as the article says, Spiked Eggnog, Snowman Summoner, Fruitcake, and Wintergreen Candy Cane dropping every time to only show the random item, as I think it's far more useful this way. Also, it looks like Snipey missed half of his random items (though got all the non-random ones). Not sure what happened there, but it gives us only 107 for the total rather than the 127 it seems like it should be. - Tanetris 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It says there was ONE Snowman Summoner in the final drop rate chart...but then it says 0 dropped. Wiki charts are so raped. Odin the King 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would read correctly, the totals are exluding fixed drop. The snowman summoner ALWAYS drops ONCE from the chest (as one of the three fixed drops) but will never drop as the fouth -random- drop. The charts are perfectly fine. --[[Image:User_Karasu_sig.png|19px]] Karasu (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Updates for 2008
Are we going to update this page for Winter's day 2008? KJZ 08:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Miniature Polar Bear
Has anyone ever found a Miniature Polar Bear drop from the chest? I'v done the mission so many times, this wintersday event and last years wintersday event too, I'v not even found anyone with a Miniature Polar Bear from the chest anywhere in GW yet. Titan Crow 13:38  21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It drops from this chest though, it's just ultra-rare. poke | talk 13:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Im thinking that it's about a 1% drop chance maybe. I think im going save my drop data for the random drop item and add it here to further the reserch.
 * [[Image:User Tytan Crow Crow.jpg|20px]] Titan Crow  14:31 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added my drop data. I hope it will help someone :) Will add more later. Could someone tell me how to count the drop rates in % please? Nok005 16:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Specific drops/total drops*100 Backsword 16:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank You very much :) Nok005 16:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added my chests, updated totals and fixed drop %'s 98.219.48.111 17:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(RI) Are we tracking fixed drops? If so, why? They're 100%. Fixed. All that matters is that fifth random item... I've added my numbers for the random drop, but skipped the fixed. Didn't update the totals, since with the fixed drops in there the drop % is meaningless. It's ALWAYS going to skew toward the fixed drops because there's one of each in every chest. Any objections to removing the fixeds from the listed drops so we can get numbers that mean something? Zephyrus Favonius 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put together a chart with fixed drops removed. I can't reconcile Inflame's numbers, though, which were just posted while I was working on it. Did they change the chest between yesterday and today? Zephyrus Favonius 20:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Inflames numbers don't add up to a clean figure divisible by 5 either which says nothing for the Eggnog drops that are way off scale from other observed totals. It looks like they added up the column rather than putting in their own data.  Your numbers don't make sense either, total 22 items for 22 chests??98.219.48.111 21:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I didn't bother listing all of the fixed drops. You get one random item per chest, and that one is what is important for our purposes here. If you like I can add 22 Wintergreens, 22 Summoners, 22 Fruitcakes, and 22 Spiked Nogs -- but it won't make the numbers mean anything. Zephyrus Favonius 21:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; listing the static drops doesn't really make any sense :/ poke | talk 21:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's 4 randoms per chest and your figures still make 0 sense. How did you pick which of the 5 drops was random going by your assumption?  Flip a coin?  98.219.48.111 21:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Process of elimination FTW. Every time I opened the chest I got 1 Fruitcake, 1 Summoner, 1 Wintergreen, and 1 Spiked Nog. Guaranteed. Then I got a fifth item. What was that fifth item? Something from the list on the page. Zephyrus Favonius 21:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain then why summoners don't show up as a duplicate drop (based on your data set) but show up as an available random drop? 98.219.48.111 21:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(RI) Two possibilities: a low drop rate, or the list of random items in incorrect. Zephyrus Favonius 21:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer the question orginally posed, yes. There is a forum on ingamers where a guy claims to have gotten a mini-polar bear as a drop.  There is a screen shot of one in her inventory. Link here:http://guildwars.incgamers.com/showthread.php?t=485027&page=18  As for the drop rate, I figure it is about the same as the drop rate for the Ghostly Hero or any other very high end mini. KJZ 05:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers KJZ, I'll keep on trying. I'll post all my data on the drop of the random item at the end of the festival. And for everyone else that hi-jacked this post, it states on the wiki page for the Wintersday Chest that "This chest drops 5 items: Spiked Eggnog, Snowman Summoner, Fruitcake, Wintergreen Candy Cane and one randomly selected from the list below." See the page for the list.
 * Thanks again KJZ ; ) [[Image:User Tytan Crow Crow.jpg|20px]]  Titan Crow  19:58  22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am posting this as "wild roumor" so take it for what's it worth (which may be next to nothing). I overheard a conversation in LA today where one person was telling another that he had heard that ANet had done an search and found that one hundred thousand mini polar bears have already been given out.  I admit that an SQL query would not be hard to run, but I doubt they would tell us how many have been given out nor do I think that one hundred thousand minis have been given out so far.  What do you all think?  KJZ 01:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably (very probably) just a wild rumour, but given the sheer amount of people farming the quests, and the number of times people have done the quest, even if the Miniature Polar Bear had a 0.01% drop chance, we could easily have hit the 100,000 figure already. Does anyone remember the CRAZY amount of Favour we got after the double Sunspear/Lightbringer event earlier last year? That would require tens of thousands of people maxing the two titles within that one weekend. Couple that kind of devotion (fanaticism?) with this incredibly rare (but still dropping) mini, and it's not hard to believe that they could be around the GW servers in such numbers. - Zaxares 10:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are people getting it, you see it being sold in trade chat as well as on the sell forums/auctions, it's just that very few people are actually posting drop numbers here. I wouldn't believe a word of there being 100,000 of them however, for one thing, ArenaNet NEVER provides exact drop numbers. They wouldn't last year, they aren't going to this year, so that's all just a load of crap. I would guess it's more than 100, but less than 1000. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 10:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. So what we're saying is that theres next to no chance of getting a Miniature Polar Bear. It would take so many attempts to get one, about 6000 or something (not sure about my maths on that) to get one, that its not really worth thinking about. But all said, we all have the same 0.06% chance of getting it, lol, so i'll kep on trieing. : )
 * [[Image:User Tytan Crow Crow.jpg|20px]] Titan Crow  12:26 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 0.06% seems awfully damn optimistic...1000 runs club or bust!! 98.219.48.111 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 100,000 bears handed out would have taken the community over 200 million chest runs based on current research. I think it's safe to say that there are no way near 100,000 of them. Manassas 10:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Reset Indent Actually, that's less than 0.06%. I basically just calculated that by taking the percentage chance of it dropping if one had appeared by now (1/Total Opened Chests). Although, now that the totals have been updated again, I'll update that percentage to reflect the new data. Blood Red Giant 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So far, I have done 387 runs, no mini polar bear. My wife went and gave me her drops she was not selling to me. So I have no clue what my drops were comparied to hers.  I was asleep at the time and she "forgot" I was tracking the drops.  KJZ 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 Table
I'm observing a static Snowman Summoner drop out of the Wintersday Chest in Strength of Snow. We could probably get more accurate drop information if that one was omitted since the other 4/5 drops appear to be the random ones. 98.219.48.111 18:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look a little more closely. The static items haven't changed since last year. Snowman Summoner, Fruitcake, Wintergreen Candy Cane, and Spiked Eggnog. Zephyrus Favonius 20:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those aren't static, static meaning it drops absolutely every time. There is a static drop table but thats not the same thing.  98.219.48.111 21:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the meaning of "static," but you might want to double-check. This is listed right on the page: "This chest drops 4 items: Spiked Eggnog, Snowman Summoner, Fruitcake, Wintergreen Candy Cane and one randomly selected from the list below." Zephyrus Favonius 21:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the page is wrong and needs to be edited. Empirical data above as well as my own observations shows that the only drop which matches the actual number of chests opened is the summoner.  If it were true that the other 3 were static the quantity would also be the same and it isn't.  98.219.48.111 21:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you always have the same quantity or more of those others. So there are 4 static ones and one random which can include the static ones as well.. poke | talk 21:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If 4 of the drops were static they would always match exactly the number of actual chests open and they don't, I don't see how I can make this any clearer. 98.219.48.111 21:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(RI) The numbers don't match the numbers of chests opened because they are also in the random drop list, so your received quantities may be higher. But you are guaranteed to receive one of each of those four, and that fifth random one may be anything from the list, which includes those items. Zephyrus Favonius 21:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As an example, that random item may be a Wintergreen, so for a run you'll get 2 Wintergreens, a Fruitcake, a Summoner, and a Spiked Nog. Or if the random item is a Spiked Nog, you'll get 2 Spiked Nogs, a Wintergreen, a Fruitcake, and a Summoner. And so on and so forth. Zephyrus Favonius 21:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This still doesn't explain either the lack of summoners as a duplicate based on empirical evidence or Inflame's numbers. The main page should be edited and this table should have all the other data sets iixed to reflect just the single drop (subtract chest count from the big 4).  98.219.48.111 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Before you do that, prove that the 4 drops aren't static. Zephyrus Favonius 21:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll edit my own, I don't care what happens to it from here on out. 98.219.48.111 21:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ever thought of the possible, that Inflame's numbers might be wrong? If there are more people who find such differences, then fine, but as long as it is only one person, I won't believe that they are not static. poke | talk 22:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think they are wrong? They might be, but i'm sure i didn't merged the ones from the storage with the ones that i have on my Rit (the one i use to do the quest), i usually get 1 Spiked, 1 Summon, 2 Winter Candy Canes and 1 Fruit Cake. The chest drops 5 items each time, so 46x5 = 230 Items. Anyways, i'll delete it and put again a second time later to make sure i didn't merged items from the chest with ones from drops. -- Inflame 22:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(RI) I'm wondering about Karasu's data for this year. S/he lists eggnog, spiked eggnog, wintergreen cc, yuletide tonic and a summoner as drops from a single chest: that's two "random-only" items and no fruitcake. --Mme. Donelle  04:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are we not reporting everything that drops from the chest? At least that way the numbers would be constant.  As it is, most of the data points are invalid at worse. At best, highly suspect.  KJZ 05:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've italicized the totals which exclude fixed drops. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Updated the totals so the figures reflect the excluded fixed drops. You'll notice that the number of items is one more than the number of chests: this is because of Karasu's weird data. --79.171.74.8 07:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous comment was me. I keep forgetting to log in on this computer. >_< --Mme. [[Image:User Mme. Donelle sig.jpg]]Donelle  07:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dammit! I must've overlooked that - That Eggnogg was a Fruitcake! I happend to have one already in my inventory so it confused me. I'll fix the table and am already taking note of the right spawns immediately. ;-) --[[Image:User_Karasu_sig.png|19px]] Karasu (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(RI) Updated totals and percentages, has one more item than chests again due to The Waldo's data having one more item than expected. Bibbler 09:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed addition error on Eggnogs The Waldo 02:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If anybody's interested in viewing the data without the fixed drops biasing the percentiles, I'm still maintaining my chart here. Zephyrus Favonius 08:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The chart here has unbiased percentiles too: the fixed drops are removed from the totals. --Mme. [[Image:User Mme. Donelle sig.jpg]]Donelle  08:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a second set of totals including fixed drops. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Including the fixed drops -- in either the data or the totals -- is really quite silly. It means precisely nothing. Nada, zip, zilch. It only obfuscates the real data and skews the total percentage rates towards the 4 fixed items. Zephyrus Favonius 08:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO including the fixed drops in the main research tables makes it faster and simpler to post entries. Furthermore, it's trivial to exclude fixed drops from the totals when calculating them using a spreadsheet (and even with a calculator, it only requires three additional subtractions). -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that excluding fixed drops in the results table would also be acceptable as long as we don't mix results with and without fixed drops without distinguishing the two. I've edited the table to put values without fixed drops in brackets bold the values which exclude fix drops. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure I understand what including the fixed drops is supposed to accomplish. The new Totals row is just 100% + the random drop's percentage. The data is meaningless. IMO what's important here is accuracy and utility. I don't see any possible interpretation of the data that includes fixed drops that is not either a) inherently inaccurate, which completely blows the usefulness of the results, or b) useless, since they always drop, and should be excluded so the results are meaningful. Zephyrus Favonius 10:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fixed drop figures included reduce the chance of error IMHO. If a person can get 8 from adding 4+3 there'll be a higher risk of error if a subtract-the-number-of-chests has to be calculated. The Waldo 16:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm lazy but I'm with Gordon here...my total is getting way up there and its just easier to click edit and throw my numbers in. This table has already been through what...4..5...revisions already?  Really need to pick a style and stick to it folks...lol.  98.219.48.111 16:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Random drops only then as that is the way the group seems to want it. KJZ 09:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have posted my drop rates including fixed drops. Should I edit to reflect only the one random drop? BenderRodriguez 11:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(RI) I've just updated the totals, but I fear my maths is wrong, because the percentages only add up to 99.9%. I can't be arsed to search for the error atm, though. -_- --Mme. Donelle  21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I lie, I searched for errors. Couldn't find anything, so I'm presuming the missing 0.1% accounts for the bear, although that seems a bit high. --Mme. [[Image:User Mme. Donelle sig.jpg]]Donelle  22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I've checked your numbers and they are all correct. The missing 0.1% is simply rounding error. If you add up all of the percentages before you round them, it will add up to 100%. Blood Red Giant 22:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. I suspected it might be a rounding error, but I'm not good enough at maths to be sure. Though in retrospect, ascribing the discrepancy to the bear was stupid, since there are exactly 0 bears in the data. *sigh* --79.171.74.8 02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 79.171 = Me. >_< --Mme. [[Image:User Mme. Donelle sig.jpg]]Donelle  02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I set up the table for Wintersday gifts in Excel with all the formulas to calculate totals and percentages... makes it easy to just transfer the numbers. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(RI)I wouldn't worry about exact percentages out to 3 places folks. Only one number matters here and right now its 0. 98.219.48.111 15:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(RI) I've updated the totals. Furthermore I have changed Mme. Donelle's (01:31, 31 December 2008) data from 10 to 71 Wintergreen Candies since the data did not add up and this number was obviously excluding fixed drops where the rest included it. I have not included 68.75.16.243's data in the totals since it does not add up.--Iant 11:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh, I'm going to shoot myself. I double checked the numbers when I put them in, previewed to check again, posted, edited to fix a typo, previewed again, and STILL managed to miss that error. -_- You're right, I just forgot to add the fixed drops. --Mme. [[Image:User Mme. Donelle sig.jpg]]Donelle  03:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick question
Ok, I have noticed that only the five that are guarenteed appear on the ground when you open the chest. Does the one random one automatically get placed in your inventory? Perhaps this should be placed under notes to avoid confusion. Amazing <font color="Black"> Steve  19:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We had a couple bad data sets early on that threw the whole 4 guaranteed bit. You really do get the same 4 drops every time +1 randomly selected from the table on the main page and they all drop on the floor.  None go to inventory so grab them quick you only get 15 seconds.  98.219.48.111 19:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you don't have to pick them up. Whether you have lag, or are just lazy, if you don't pick up the 5 items they will still pop up in the Unclaimed Items box when you get transported back to town after the 15 seconds are up. Sadly, the candy cane shard drops aren't able to be claimed after the fact, so make sure you pick up any CCS drops before you open the Wintersday Chest. Blood Red Giant 21:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright thanks, that makes a little more clear for me. Amazing <font color="Black"> Steve  [[image:User_amazing_steve_-_Sig.JPG‎|19px]] 22:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a regular drop - I'd think just like always every item assigned for you (drop from within the last 10 minutes) automatically appears in the Unclaimed Items box, no? --[[Image:User_Karasu_sig.png|19px]] <font color="Black">Karasu (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just tested it out, it doesnt grab cc-shard...how stupid =/ 98.219.48.111 23:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If ccs were assigned, they would only drop from creatures you took part in killing. 66.190.15.232 09:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * True, so we should be glad that they aren't assigned. :) Blood Red Giant 20:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Displaying Lucky title
I know this sounds like a long shot, but bear (no pun intended) with me for a moment. I have been recording my chest drops in batches of 50. Each batch I did while displaying lucky title (R3 - Favored) yielded 5 or 6 Yuletide Tonics, whereas the ones I did while displaying Drunkard (so it's easier to locate in the H screen) yielded 1-2 tonics. Maybe someone with a deeper knowledge of statistics and probability will be able to say whether this is just a coincidence or not. To me it seems like a strange "shift to the rarer". I am gonna keep alternating displaying Lucky and other titles for as long as the event lasts, just to see if the pattern keeps up. I would appreciate if anyone else tested displaying Lucky vs other titles, so we could dismiss or confirm this theory. BenderRodriguez 11:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I only have rank one on the lucky/unlucky track but I'll try it. :) /shrug... could it really be any worse than 300 runs of no bear luck? --67.172.167.80 12:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm R6(max)/R5 and gave this a whirl already with no appreciable difference. Your ~10% is awful high but that could be accounted for as variance.  Could you imagine all the bitching that would take place if this title actually did something?  98.219.48.111 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * <Shudder> I realize it could have been just a streak of high dice rolls (sadly not high enough). I just thought it was too convenient that the yuletide drop rate would increase from ~4% to ~10% when my Lucky title was displayed (R3 lucky gives 6% increase for lockpick retain rate). I'm gonna keep recording and see how it plays out. BenderRodriguez 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The title does do something :P But yeah, I would be annoyed if the chances of a bear dropping were affected. I've had connection issues every time I have actually remembered to get set up for 9 rings (hence only the 1st level of lucky). It's a simple title to get/buy... IF you remember and IF you have a solid connection :)
 * So far it hasn't helped me get a bear. I did see 2 Yuletide Tonics in the span of 4 runs but that's not conclusive. If it ends up being 5 or 6 out of 10... then we have >SOMETHING< two people having a similar string of luck... Anyway... Back to farming... /sigh - Nova-Exarch - (too lazy to mess with a signature right now) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.167.80 (talk).
 * Ok, this is weird... 4 tonics... out of maybe a dozen or so runs? So I'm about 1 in 3 on tonics. Still could be just an odd streak. We'll see... -- Nova-Exarch -- --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.167.80 (talk).
 * I think that's still too small a sample to provide anything conclusive. I just started a new batch, and got a tonic on my 5th run, but that doesn't really mean much since the size of the sample gives me precision in 20% increments. If any one of us got a mini bear on, say, the 100th run they could argue there's a 1% chance of a mini bear dropping, but after recording 2500 chests we can positively say it's much lower than that, because our sample provides for greater precision. Keep recording, we'll get to the bottom of this soon enough :) BenderRodriguez 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just finished running 50 with r6 on, drop rate on tonics was slightly lower 2/50 (4%) than normal. If lucky changed it (and after 850 runs boy do I wish it did) I'm not seeing it.  98.219.48.111 05:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect this lucky title thing is just wishful thinking. 50 runs is actually a very small sample size and not statistically significant; especially when carried out without a suitable control. (The data on ths page is not reliable as a control, as none of the contributors have kept track of what titles they were displaying at the time.) --<font color="#001100">Mme. [[Image:User Mme. Donelle sig.jpg]]<font color="#001100">Donelle  05:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 50 was plenty for me since I don't believe lucky has any undocumented effects to begin with, call me a skeptic. The one and done crowd use luck alright but its not the title variety.  98.219.48.111 05:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a total of 300 chests over the course of the event and got 17 tonics, which is 5.66% or just about the same value we got over the entire 2500+ chests. However, I did 200 displaying Drunkard (got 5 tonics total) and 100 displaying Lucky (got 12 tonics total). It was enough to make me wonder, but I think 98.219's 50 chests (@R6 lucky) prove it was just variance playing tricks on me. BenderRodriguez 06:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, 98.219's results prove nothing; the sample size is to small to be significant. Nobody's results so far prove anything, in fact, because as I said before, we don't have a reliable control. We don't know what title most of the contributors to the above table were displaying, but chances are good that many of them (and we know for certainty that some) were displaying lucky. Therefore, if lucky did affect the drop rates, then the data in the table would be biased towards lucky-aided rates, and therefore useless as a control. I myself had drunkard displayed, so that would result in a slight bias towards drunkard-aided rates. The only way to tell if titles truly affect the drop rate is to do several hundred (or several thousand) runs without displaying any title whasoever, followed by a similar number of runs while displaying lucky. --<font color="#001100">Mme. [[Image:User Mme. Donelle sig.jpg]]<font color="#001100">Donelle  07:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah the plot thickens :) Thanks for explaining, I see what you mean now. BenderRodriguez 07:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(RI) Donelle, a full 800 of the 850 results I've contributed so far were with no title at all. There's your control ~1/3 of the available data. How high is a suitable n for you? Because I have plenty of time left to run "no title" up to n=1000. Titles do not have undocumented effects and if they did you could never prove it unless you have privileged access to information otherwise unavailable to the other 99% of us. Variance covers any drops that don't fit into the expected norm that are reported given the relatively small sample size everyone else is reporting (which, by the way, really does skew the data) and if you took a 50 run slice at random of my total you'd get some pretty weird numbers too. Tonics, for example, have been as low as 4% and as high as 8% when n=50, but overall its the expected value of 6% when n=850. 98.219.48.111 14:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you yelling at me for? That the data is an unreliable control was a perfectly valid comment to make, because believe or not, I did not magically know what titles you were or were not displaying when you did your runs. I don't even understand the rest of your comment: you appear to be trying to convince me of a fact I was myself trying to make (that variance accounts for suspicious trends and that small samples skew the data). Don't be an asshole. --<font color="#001100">Mme. [[Image:User Mme. Donelle sig.jpg]]<font color="#001100">Donelle  15:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is yelling (lol?)? Protip: petty name calling means the discussion is over.  Maybe I'll check back in on this section when the event is over I have a lot more farming to do.  98.219.48.111 15:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion? We were not discussing: I made a general comment regarding the nature of data collection and you attacked me directly by implying I was an idiot who didn't know what I was talking about. Furthermore, I didn't engage in "petty name-calling" so much as I suggested that you refrain from being a jerk for no good reason. Perhaps I need to thumb through a dictionary but I thought that was the rough definition of an asshole. --<font color="#001100">Mme. [[Image:User Mme. Donelle sig.jpg]]<font color="#001100">Donelle  16:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Take it easy folks, no need to turn this into a war. Let's just remember we're here to put our knowledge together, following the old "two heads are smarter than one" motto. I don't think 98.219's informing you of the nature of the 800 runs could possibly constitute an attack and I am sure s/he meant no harm. BenderRodriguez 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, "There's your control ~1/3 of the available data. How high is a suitable n for you?" sounded pretty damn sarcastic, like he was really saying, "you fucking moron, there IS a control -- my runs were done without titles, and you should have known that even though there was no way you could have known that". And I don't see why he felt the need to make the incredibly obvious point that small samples skew results when I'd already said that myself! He clearly thinks I'm some kind of idiot. --<font color="#001100">Mme. [[Image:User Mme. Donelle sig.jpg]]<font color="#001100">Donelle  16:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're reading way too much into this, Bender is right. 98.219.48.111 16:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To me he just sounded like taking a hands on approach to the subject. "you fucking moron, there IS a control -- my runs were done without titles, and you should have known that even though there was no way you could have known that" is not the tone I see in his post. He discussed my original idea, which was preposterous unlike your statement about no control group (how could you know?), with remarkable distancing from his own preconceptions and skepticism. Why would he start flaming at you? Wiki benefits from such a distanced approach, as opposed to the seeing everything as a personal comment or critique. BenderRodriguez 17:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. He was stating things I had mentioned myself, and was specifically saying them to me, which felt like a subtle flame. And that angered me, because as you say, the wiki is meant to be free from personal attacks. But I suppose I am just being paranoid. I'm sorry. I've been in a particularly vicious self-loathing mood all day today; nothing I do or say is right. -_- --<font color="#001100">Mme. [[Image:User Mme. Donelle sig.jpg]]<font color="#001100">Donelle  17:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to sit in my chair with one foot tucked under the opposite thigh, in sort of a half-indian-style manner. I've noticed that while sitting on my right foot, I receive the greatest quantity of snowman summoners. When sitting on my left foot, I receive the greatest quantity of fruitcakes. Maybe someone with a deeper knowledge of statistics and probability will be able to say whether this is just a coincidence or not. Or maybe I should unfuck myself and strive for a greater understanding of the differences between coincidence, correlation, and causality - especially when noticing apparent patterns in small ranges. Ninjatek 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how low some people go to make themselves feel bigger and better. BenderRodriguez 05:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since the chest always drops exactly one snowman summoner, that pattern doesn't even work >.>  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the deeper knowledge of statistics and probability would state that Ninjatek is always tucking the right foot under ;p (76.30.79.54 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

Now That It's Over
I still can't believe no one on this table dropped one. Here's to hoping next year some brave soul makes that 0 a 1. 98.219.48.111 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sad really... over 3000 runs and no bear. Things like this shouldn't be in the game imo, specialy as a xmas item. DustScorpion 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it being in game, I have a problem with how rarely it drops. I know I did not go around asking but I only heard of about one bear a day dropping.  Way below what I would have expected.  If anyone at ANet is reading this, I am very, very disappointed.  KJZ 06:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did go round asking people KJZ, in the European and American districts, and only heard of less than half a dozen minis being found, but have seen about another half a dozen for sale (that is presuming that the ones for sale are not the same ones being found). Im also very disappointed. Not a happy chappy at all. [[Image:User Tytan Crow Crow.jpg|20px]] Titan Crow  23:42 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt, but a lot of people who got one report it in under 30 tries. A few people have even reported 2 drops in the span of the event (which if true is pretty outrageous).  I can't help but wonder if there is a system of diminishing returns set up to purposely stop those of us who went over 500 tries from getting one.  I'd be curious to hear any high run count (500+?) anecdotal drops if anyone has any?  98.219.48.111 18:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that once i saw some noob in La selling one for 30k. XD, i thought that's what they were worth until i saw 3-4 million price tag on guru. :D that mini must have sold fast. --[[Image:User Jrhsk8 Shadow Form.jpg|18px]] Jrhsk8   talk  09:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you heard of about one bear a day dropping, maybe the drop rate is set to drop only one mini bear a day, no matter how many chest are opened in that day...?
 * How would that work? The game would have to know in advance how many people were going to open the chest or else it would have to drop the first time someone opened the chest each day every day--Kryzz 06:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

polar bear
anyone have a screen of how it looks when its droped from chest...i want to see it XDAurenX 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't drop, it's an Anet scam to keep the lemmings entertained. You can see from the drop table, that if by chance Anet actually put this in the game, they forgot to adjust the drop rate past 0.  Maybe Gaile and Regina should look into that... - Drakora 20:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen numerous Polar Bears for sale in-game, so I know they must be getting them from somewhere... FloppyJoe 04:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Polar Bear was not listed on the site. Hence, I had removed it, but many wanted it back. It did not drop for me or others that I have noticed this year. 72.148.31.114 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heck, if it doesn't drop anymore, they could at least lie to us and tell us that it does so all the drop research and hunting is validated. I mean, with a drop under a fraction of a percent, it might as well be a hoax anyway, so just lie to us, tell us it's all going to be okay. -- Axis 09:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Mini Jingle Moa
Heard that a mini jingle moa drops from this chest too, anyone got a screenshot? Saga &#91;DOJO&#93; 15:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can not find any evidence online that supports this. It is just another rumor. FloppyJoe 16:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldnt be a bad idea to add 3 more mini's to that chest. Id much rather have a white mini moa or white moa chick than a jingle bear :P (Ixillius)

Drop Rate Research
So where is drop rate research being done? --Musha 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the page says "Miniature Polar Bear (less than 0.02% based on current data)." Where is this current data? --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)




 * The research is already on the drop rate this page. Over 3000 chests opened and no mini. That doesn't allow us to determine the actual drop rate, but it does allow us to place an upper limit on it (with 99% confidence) @ about 0.2%. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 19:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nearly 6000 openings... the totals be out of date. 24.197.253.243 23:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, the drop rate is likely to be less than 0.1%. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Using exact statistical routines for a binomial ASSUMING the outcomes are random (hardly likely with this game!!), the exact upper 99% confidence limit (using n = 3141 and 0 observed events) is 0.1465% with a 'best-guess' (median unbiased estimate) for the drop rate of only 0.0221%. If this latter estimate were true, the expected number of runs to get one bear would be a bit over 4532, but there is very nearly a 1% chance that you might have to wait 20870 runs (!!!) to get one.  If the upper CI limit were true, the expected number of runs would be 682.6 with a probability a bit under 1% that you'd have to wait 3142 times (meaning we would have just missed getting 1--which matches the upper CI limit given).  If we are up to 6000 runs with no reported bears, then the exact upper 99% CI limit is 0.076%, with a best guess chance of getting a bear = 0.01155% (using latter, the expected number of runs is 8656.7 and you stand almost a 1% chance of having to wait up to 39865 runs [OMG])  [I am a trained consulting statistician, so I do know whereof I speak, at least regarding statistics.  And, yes, I LIKE statistics!  I am GW-Susan in GuildWiki that made the table being referenced three above this comment.] Wsears 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC) -- oops, 1 misplaced decimal (happens to the best of us!) and needed the word 'chance' to clarify. 99.225.58.101 04:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, Susan, ty. I was sorta, well, winging it. Can you also mention your calculations to Joe Kimmes? He's been asked if the reported drop rate (well, lack of drop rate) is what ANet had planned when they added the mini polar. Thanks!


 * (And, if isn't obvious: ignore whatever I have written on the topic in favor of Wsears. Any misinterpretations are mine.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @TEF. I think you're getting the numbers wrong. You keep saying .1% and .2% but the actual reported values are ranging between .01% and .02%. --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 06:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, not everyone reports on the wiki, so we probably wont every truly know the exact percentage. 71.61.61.149 20:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above is a GOOD point about reporting bias. Suppose people who get these minis (for some odd reason) are less prone to report results than those who don't get the mini, then our numbers could be way off and much too low.  However, people being what they are, I would really expect that people would want to brag and gloat about the fact they got one, so maybe our numbers are too high (i.e., the real drop rate is even worse than we think).  While there is a small chance you might have to wait some 20000 runs or more, there is also a small chance you might not have to wait so very long.  So, here are some chances assuming the drop rate is actually 0.02% and assuming things are truly random, independent, etc. (and taking closest solutions):  You have about a 1% chance to get Mr. Bear within 51 runs but there is also a 1% chance for you to have to make 23024 runs or more; for 2% chance, these become 101 & 19559; at 3% 152 & 17532; at 4% 204 & 16094; at 5% 256 & 14978; 7.5% 390 & 12951; and last, a 10% chance to obtain Mr. Bear within 527 runs but also a 10% chance to have to wait up to 11512 runs, or more. Wsears 16:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)