e first subject, according to "Luck for Subject Alone", scored between 56% and 44% for all his tries. The percentages are near the upper range for all tries but the last. 1 out of 5 tries is at the lower range. The average of his tries was 52%: slightly above the statistical prediction of 50%. When his path was crossed by a white cat, his luck first decreased to 36%. This is a great drop taken by itself, but all the other 4 were near or at the top. The average percentage for a white cat was 49.2%, 2.8% below the subject's average and .8% below the statistical prediction. However, 3 out of 5 tries are not outside the original range. They are within the subject's average percentage range, but they are only slight drops from the statistical average of 50%. The subject's luck was decreased according to a random factor, not according to the cat's path-crossing. These are the cats used in the experiment. These results appear to agree with the superstition, even for the wrong cat color. I ran the test a second time to see if the white cat's results could be repeated. This time the results (see "Luck for second white cat crossing") were different. The subject's luck started out high, at 56%. Then it peaked at 58%. It then dropped to the lowest point, 40%, and went up through 48% and 50%. These percentages are higher than the drop observed earlier. The drop to 36% can now be seen as a random error, not related in any way to the white cat. If the cat truly was capable of decreasing luck, the subject's luck would have repeated the decline. The black cat, surprisingly, caused less of a drop than the white cat. The black cat lowered the minimum percentage to 40%. The luck average was 47.2%. This range is still within the percentage range of the unaffected luck. The luck has not descended out of the average range of the subject. The luck of the second subject was slightly different. His percentages were 40-52%, averaging 46.8%. When his path was cros...
