GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.



Standing in the corner be used to get both winning tickets and some losses, for it doesnt matter where you stand odds are the same for winning tickets(middle has 1/9 chance of winning 25 and 4/9 to win 15(4*15=60), thus net 85 ticket won per 90 lost, sides got 1/9 to win 40 and 3/9 to win 15(3*15=45), thus again 85 tickets won per 90 lost and corners got 1/9 to win 55 and 2/9 chances to win 15(2*15=30) thus again 85 tickets won per 90 lost the chances of losing games on corners is 6/9 so per 5 tickets youll have lost 6 times. The 4*4 has a chance of 9/16 of losing 6/16 to earn 3 and 1/16 to earn 12 so per 16 games your expected to win 18+12=30 tickets while having spend 2*16=32 tickets per 16 games youll lose 2 tickets and have lost 9 games. or something.

So there's an average of around 400 loss per hour?

Here are my hourly approximation calculations: 3600 sec/hour / 186 sec/cycle * 19 games/cycle * 2/3 losses/game = 245 losses/hour ==> 20.4 hours for Hapless.

As for tickets/hour 3600 sec/hour / 186 sec/cycle * 19 games/cycle * 85/9 tickets/game = 3473 tickets/hour ==> 14.4 hours to gain Charmed.

And finally, cost/hour 3600 sec/hour / 186 sec/cycle * 19 games/cycle * 5/9 tickets/game * 15 g/ticket = 3064 gold/hour

Of course, being a game of luck, these may be much different than actual results. --Thervold 14:06, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

For those interested in getting both titles with the least amount of money, I worked out the math in the Rings of Fortune talk. The cheapest way to get both titles would be to play Nine Rings for a little over 12.5 hours then switch to Rings of Fortune for another 9.25 hours, costing about 44,900 gold. Again, this is all by pure probility and is likely to differ from actual time requirements. --Thervold 17:03, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

I played for 2 AFK sessions, the first time I spent 45k for tickets, stood on a corner, and went AFK. When I returned 10 hours later I had I think 8 tickets left and had earned 31k toward the lucky title. The 2nd AKF session I spent 30k for ticket, stood on a corner, and when I returned 5 hours later I had only a few tickets and had earned a total of 41k towards Lucky.

It looks like my long term results are that its taking me twice as much money to achieve Lucky, than we can expect via your calculations. Looks like I'm going to spend my entire 100k to get Lucky.

Now I have a rudementary understanding of statics, and I believe these results are way outside statistical possibility. I was thinking perhaps the program takes all your remaining tickets after a 'while', but if so then my two long runs would have netted about the same advancement towards the title.

Am I wrong and these results are 'possible' statistically? 10:48, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

All the probability seems good but when you take a basic understanding of computers you realize the statistics aren't going to work out. The probability games all have to use a Random Number Generator (RNG) for them to work, ideally the RNG is going to pick each circle only once and all the others only once. But computers don't work like that and you'll never truly have a RNG in a computer. The RNG is a mathematical equation and it's going to favor certain numbers more than others. So what ends up happening is that some circles get picked more often than others and those are the ones you want to stand on to gain more Lucky points. Peekay

Corner strategy[]

Expected Result for a corner is (-10 tickets) + (1/9*55) + (2/9)*15 (+6/9*0) ==> -10 + 85/9 ==> -4/9-5/9. You lose four5 tickets (6075 gold) every nine games.
Every nine games, you lose four tickets (net), make +85 tickets progress on the "Lucky" title track, and make +6 progress on the Unlucky" title track.
Or, each game you lose 0.44 tickets, +9.44 Lucky, +0.66 Unlucky.
First Lucky title is 50,000 / 9.44 => 5296.6 games
First Unlucky title is 5,000 / .66 => 7,575.75 games
--JoDiamonds 12:36, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
-10 + 85/9 = = -90/9 + 85/9 = -5/9 !!! --- Kai Neah Nung
Derf, thanks. That makes it a loss of 0.55 tickets each game (or five in nine games). The rest stands. --JoDiamonds 05:08, 1 July 2006 (CDT)

Perfect Stradegy. I got the Charmed title in 8 hours by sitting in a corner. I even made money because I had more tickets than i started with!

I wish I had that luck... I started with almost 3,000 tickets and only managed to make 4,000 points toward my lucky title track before running out of tickets. 18:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark of Rodgort[]

I haven't ever used Mark of Rodgort before, but when I saw someone using it, I noticed it was the same display used when you won nine rings. I don't remember what the losing one was though.

The animation is from Rodgort's invocation, and indicates which is the winning ring.

Erm "odds"?[]

Why is there a listing of how much it would cost to (I assume) buy the amount of tickets equivilant to the title requirement? Last time I checked the title is "Lucky" not "Rich".-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 14:33, 20 October 2006 (CDT)

Are those stats based on the average if you stand in one circle? Since it's a game of chance you could probably do it in less/more time if you move around...-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 14:35, 20 October 2006 (CDT)

I Read the rest of the thread. Unless you know something about the random number generator or can in some other way increase your chances of picking a winning circle, perhaps noticing a sequence or noticing the circle picked tends to be the one with the least number of players in it, then there isn't any analysis you can do other than the 'average' one done ..err.. I should say you cannot devise a strategy that has a greater chance to win. This is mathemetically true. And I offer this compelling evidence: all that gliter in Las Vegas is build by folks who believe otherwise. If you have a 'strategy' of moving around a lot, then the average stays the same but your advancement towards the titles is modified, but so what. If you want to share with us some 'strategy' that materially is different than the ones given, then by all means do so. 00:39, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
Moving around doesn't change anything. The average cost of the title is the same in all rings, though the actual deviation from the theoretical cost increases from middle -> side -> corner.

If you are truely lucky, you could buy a minimal amount of tickets and win the "lucky" title by moving from winning square to winning square.-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 08:14, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

It says "average" in the article. Moving around does not change the average. --Fyren 08:16, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

If I went from winning ring to winning ring my ticket/time average would be higher than the one on the article.-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 08:40, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

That would be something completely different. Rest assured that the math is correct even if you don't understand it. --Fyren 08:52, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

I'm sure the math is correct for the conditions that it is describing, but it's not correct for ALL situations and should be labled as such. Use your brain ffs.-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 09:00, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

The article accurately describes the average. If you don't understand probability or what "average" means, then don't take it out on me. --Fyren 09:03, 23 October 2006 (CDT)


I tend to disagree with the merge request. Since the game is also linked from Dragon Festival 2006 it would be easier to keep the rules of the game as a seperate article. At least if you don't plan a major rewrite of Dragon Festival 2006 as well. Further, since Nine Rings is a term of the game it deserves at least a redirect page. It is likely that visitors will come up with the term in the search bar, so they should find something. --MRA 01:25, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

/disagree with merge for the above reasons also. - BeXoR Bexor.png 09:36, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
I also disagree with the merge, if it wasn't merged when it initially came out as a part of the Dragon Festival, I can't see why we should do so now. --User:ImbrilShadowfire Imbril Shadowfire 14:20, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
/disagreed Just the fact that this game has showed up in two different places (Dragon Festival and Boardwalk, which technically aren't the same thing) leads me to think that it may be used in more events or even made a permanent feature in Nightfall or some other future chapter. Jinkas 19:32, 23 October 2006 (CDT)


Regarding this line:

"This equates to 3572 tickets gained per hour (at a cost of 228 tickets forever lost per hour), which means that on average, it requires 14 hours (and 12.8 stacks of tickets lost) to earn 50,000 tickets towards each title"

Does the "12.8 stacks of tickets lost" refer to the "228 tickets forever lost per hour"? If that's the case, then it'd be an easier read to simply state that 2918.4 tickets lost per hour, thus netting +635.6 tickets per hour. --theSpectator talk 13:31, 24 February 2007 (CST)

I was a little confused at the start since when I read the rules it appeared as though the player would grandually win tickets over time (but no, you don't get anything for being diagonally adjacent). But the odds are stuck at slowing losing tickets, just like Las Vegas: if you play a slot until you lose your original $100, you can expect to have won perhaps 5,000 during the session. I think it should read something like '3572 tickets WON <'gained' is misleading> per hour, 3800 lost per hour, for a COST of 228 tickets per hour'. 00:47, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

EDIT: I also removed the note about only achieving "Favored" rank due to only 120 hours of gametime, since the Boardwalk games were opened again for just before Nightfall release and for Gamer Weekend. --theSpectator talk 13:38, 24 February 2007 (CST)

translation mistake fixed[]

I don't know for the other languages, but for the German version, the translation error has been fixed, so I suspect for the other languages as well. If not, just put that piece of info back in. --Roland icon.pngRoland of Gilead (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Very unlucky![]

I've spents thousands, 1000 tickets at a time, and I've never even come close to the theoretical return.

In three runs, center square each time, I won about 12000, 8000, and then 6000 tickets. Theoretically, I should have won about 36,000 instead of the approximately 26,000 tickets I did win.

No lottery for me! No, sirree! --Jeremy Winston 17:14, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Hardly that unlucky. I've found myself almost incapable of getting anywhere with the lucky title track. While I wanted to get to 100,000 in order to get r2 Lucky (for HoM), after losing about 200,000 gold so far, I'm still only 68k into the title.

Not exactly 1/9?[]

Is it possible that there's actually a slight lean towards the center/sides winning more often than they should? Playing the center means that you should win 25-10 tickets once every nine times, win 15-10 ticket four out of nine times, and lose 10 tickets four out of nine times. Statistically, this indicates that you should lose 90 tickets for every 85 put in. However, I have gone in with a small stack of 200, and come back the next day (after sleeping and work), with four or more stacks on top of my original.

However, this might balance itself out statistically for every case in which someone loses three purchased stacks in half an hour.

I stood on the corner overnight and made a heap of tickets. There's no noticeable bias. If there was, it would've been proven long ago. - Buzzer 05:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am making a profit[]

I am making a profit stood in the corner not much of one but i started with 4 stacks now i got 5

Probably just luck imo. —HelloWarw/Wick 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is just luck. I stood in the corner over night on a certain district with only 3 stacks to start and when i woke up i had a full extra one. As i watch it now, I've moved up to 6 stacks. My net win over the 6 hour night i left it on was like 34k because it moved me to rank 3 lucky.

--I bought one stack of tickets and stood in the middle ring... I sometimes have a "lucky streak" or an "unlucky streak" where I win a lot or lose a lot, but I've been at about 20 to 50 tickets MORE than I started with most of the time over the course of about 3 hours... I know this isn't nearly enough to statistically prove anything, but my personal experience with nine rings has been "luckier" than usual during the 2008 dragon festival. Prodigy 05:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You can get winning streaks, and you can get losing streaks. I've won as many as 4 stacks in a winning streak. I've gone 12+ hours without going into the red on tickets. I've also gone through 4 stacks of tickets in a very short time frame. It tends to average out. Streaks are enhanced in the corners, where wins are few, but a couple wins together mean an extra stack of tickets. Yamagawa 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

7 Hours in a corner i have made a stack of ticket, not too bad lucky ;) ( 12:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Gamer Titletrack[]

From what I can tell from the title's page, this games does not give points towards it. It would be nice to confirm this and put it on this page so people know for sure it does not. Mokushiroku no Yami 13:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wintersday nine rings[]

How about a link or at least some mention of the yearly Wintersday Nine Rings? 03:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Adjacent Ring Effect[]

So, there's been discussion of the Rodgort's Invocation effect for winning rings, but I was wondering which skill animation, if any, is used for the rings adjacent to the winning one. It looks like a monk skill animation, but I've checked what animations are available on GuildWarsWiki and none of them fit. Any ideas? Vala Nyx 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Purge Conditions iirc. --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks =D Vala Nyx 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeout of tickets in the ground[]

My corner was doing very nicely, and after an hour I had two stacks up, a full inv, and some tickets on the floor. And suddenly I noticed the oldest drop disappeared. Do they timeout and disappear, or more probably, the drop becomes "free for all" after a while, and some dirty rat stole it (I'm looking at you Tiny Arrows!)? Chemtox40k 16:15, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yes; after 10 minutes, anyone can pick them up. --Macros 16:27, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

"Running" strategy?[]

I've seen some rather immature people doing this lately but it does have the possibility to work. Instead of standing in a ring, the run across them (without stopping to stand) and winning tickets this way. The proof is by seeing someone do it on a side ring which would return the "too bad..." message (because I've noticed the side rings are generally unfavoured and therefore mostly empty), but instead got the "Congratulations!". My question is this: Should the functionality of the Nine Rings be modified so that it only returns tickets to those actually "standing" on the winning ring and not moving? I know this theory does have a few holes in it such as those scared of timing-out so they get their character to turn one direction the whole time, etc. --Valandil D 03:10, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

What kind of proof is that? He just happened to be running through the side ring when it was picked. Have him do that for 8+ hours and see how many Lucky points he averages per hour. If he gets significantly more than 3,454 tickets/hour, then it might be a valid strategy, but statistically it shouldn't make any difference. I'd think running around would actually make it worse, since there's a chance you won't be in any ring at all when the timer hits 0. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:16, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Think you kind of missed the point there. I said it was a bit of an immature type of strategy as was the person doing it, and I'm seeing more of them now. I agree they're not going to get any more points (if any) than the rest of the people stationary on the rings, but my point was getting at the people running through the rings when the timer gets to 0 instead of being stationary. Forget it, it's something that caught my attention and probably should be ignored if it's not going to make a difference. --Valandil D 15:30, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why you should be forced to stand still in order to play Rings. Where's the harm in walking around? --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 15:40, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Right, I was directing my criticism at said immature player, not at you. We are definitely in agreement that it's a silly strategy. Randomness is random, there's an equal chance for any ring to be picked each time regardless of which rings were picked in the past, so there's really no benefit or detriment to running around rather than standing still, and thus no reason to impose a restriction on movement. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:48, April 26, 2010 (UTC)