![]() ![]() It is just as likely to occur to the first person as the thousandth. Nothing states that the one in a thousand happens at attempt 1000. ![]() You say that since the odds are 1 in 1000, and there were only 100 attempts, such an outcome most likely would not have occurred. And like I said, I'm sure there are far more than your less than 100 claim.īut even with that wrong claim, your conclusion is wrong on its face anyway. So all that matters is how many players have tried at least 20 forges where the percent is ~30, regardless of what else they've done in between. It just means the player had 20 attempts of 30% without a hit, regardless of what other successes or failures he had in between. You seem to be under some misguided notion that consecutive in this example means the player sat there and did 20 straight, without doing forges of other designations. Hell, I've done it at least a hundred myself probably. And I'm sure there have been at least a thousand players who have tried forging around that percentage 20 times or more by now. By now, I'm sure thousands and thousands of ~30% relic forges have been tried. But even regardless, the numbers you spout out are likely way off anyway. So that makes the rest of your paragraph nonsense by default. So stating that it only includes players who have done 20 consecutive tries is utter hogwash. So player 1 had it hit after his 3rd try, player 2 had it hit after his 6th try, player 3 was lucky and had it hit on his first! and so on and so on, until aAll of those players would count. Because what the one in a thousand means, is that out of a thousand people who try forging at 30%, one of those poor chumps will have to do it 20 times to have it hit. As soon as someone gets a hit, they needn't keep going. It can include even only one forging try with 30% success rate, if that try garnered a hit. You state that the one in a thousand only includes 20 consecutive forging tries with 30% success rate for each. And the more people you have trying, the more likely you'd have at least one have this happen.Īnd that brings us to your next error. But one person? That's an anomaly, nothing more. That's the number that your flawed example should've been using. Now the more players that make attempts, the more you should see the amount having it hit near 30% approach a statistical norm. The number that matters is how many people out of how many people had this happen? That's where you would see it approach a statistical norm. See, you only had ONE person in this example have that happen. But that's where you're using the wrong number. What malarkey! No, what it means is that there was an exception hence, why the odds are one in a thousand, and not 0 in a thousand. Even if 20 times was a big enough number, you stated that if by then you don't see something close to a statistical norm then the game is rigged. But you also are using the wrong number as your example. Anyone who does data will tell you that you generally need at least 30-50 data points before you even start to draw conclusions or trends (for most cases). You say that 20 times is a big enough number to generate an outcome approaching a statistical norm. ![]() You couldn't be more wrong on all counts.įirst, your logic is fatally flawed as it relates to the statistical norm example you gave. Even if it has occurred, most likely once.Īll in all, with 20 consecutive 30%-success-rate forging failures, he is most likely the only person out of all the DOT players who had such a bad luck or the displayed 30% success rate was a wrong number. Since the chance of such occurring is less than one in 1000 and # of such tries is less than 100, such an outcome most likely would not have occurred. I think, # of incidents players have tried 20 consecutive 30% success relic forging is less than 100. Even far fewer are 20 consecutive such tries. There have been hundreds of thousands of DOT player relic forging tries, but most of them were not 30% success forging tries. In "one in a thousand", the thousand only includes 20 consecutive forging tries with 30% success rate for each of them. When you don't see something close to a statistical norm even after you increased # of tries, it's very likely that the game is rigged. 20 times is a big enough number to generate an outcome approaching a statistical norm if prob is 30%. But, as you increase number of tries, your outcome should approach a statistical norm. ![]() When you try once or twice, your outcome would seem random. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |