M2 KP 2

12/9/13
Shiny Legend build statistics "Don't worry I'll use common folk language"
Welcome back, Link. Y ou las t vis ited: T oday, 0 2 :3 0 A M User CP M od C P L og O ut
Forums Search Member List Calendar Help

Defender of Texel Forum / Defender of Texel / General
Search...
/ Shiny Legend build statistics "Don't worry I'll use common folk language"
Pages (3): Previous
Next
Thread Rating:
Threaded Mode | Linear Mode Post: #11 |
Today, 02:52 AM (This post was last modified: Today 03:20 AM by Link.)
Link
Super Moderator
Posts: 1,288 Joined: Aug 2013 Reputation: 56 Warning Level: 0%
RE: Shiny Legend build statistics "Don't worry I'll use common folk language"
Actually GQ's statement isn't wrong he just did his math wrong >_< Your reasoning is COMPLETELY wrong and the only reason your numbers came out close to correct is because of how small the percentages are Edit: I've explained why your math is COMPLETELY wrong by providing another example in my post ~2 or 3 posts down. The real way to think about it (I've got experience through linear algebra so cut the sassy attitude) is to think about the chances you will NOT get the legendary. The statistics on the chances of getting 0 are just easier and easier to understand 1-the chance you won't get legendary will give you the chance you will. He was correct in saying that .994^12 is the chance you won't get a legendary in step 10, he just apparently calculated that wrong >< .994^12 is .930, 1-.930 is a 7% chance on the final step that you'd get the legendary. Your calculation is (roughly, rounding and such) the same 7%. However, your calculation is right for the wrong reasons. Each pull is mutually exclusive and you DO NOT ADD THEM!!! Again, see below post.
defenderoftexel.com/thread-16120-post-164000.html#pid164000
1/9
12/9/13
HERE IS THE REAL MATH!! Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step
1: .05% chance (this one is obvious) 2: (1-.001)^2 = 99.8% chance of no legendary. 0.2% chance of legendary on this step. 3: .9985^3 = 99.55% chance of no legendary, 0.45% chance of legendary 4: .998^3= 99.4% chance of no legendary, 0.6% chance of legendary 5:.997^5 = 98.5% chance of no legendary, 1.5% chance of legendary 6:.996^7= 95.87% chance of no legendary, 4.13% chance of legendary 7: .995^9 = 95.59% chance of no legendary, 4.41% chance of legendary 8:.994^11 = 93.6% chance of no legendary, 6.4% chance of the legendary 9: same as 8 10: .994^12 = 93% chance of no legendary, 7% chance of legendary.
Feel free to use this math, no need to give me credit as these calculations are SUPER easy and I really don't care. You have a bad habit of insulting people (calling me "violated" and suggesting a bunch of insulting things about gqhong). You tend to ignore anyone else's opinion while insisting that yours is correct and that everyone that doesn't agree with you is *insert random insult here*. This kind of discussion is not productive and is detrimental to the community as a whole. Thank you for the calculations (though the reasoning behind them is actually incorrect lol), but if you cannot respond to people without being a jerk then just don't post at all. A lot of your reasoning is WILDLY incorrect even though your actual calculation here is roughly accurate due to blind luck. GQ is absolutely correct that each pull is independent and you shouldn't be adding. It's just that with such low percentages the difference is negligible from the real calculation.
Free Homework Helper

www.hom e work sim plifie d.com Ace Your Hom e work Assignm e nts Install Toolbar Now - Fre e !
IP Address: Logged
Today, 02:55 AM (This post was last modified: Today 03:08 AM by C bongiovanni.)
Post: #12 | Posts: 126 Joined: Aug 2013 Reputation: 0 Warning Level: 0%
Cbongiovanni
Rare
Morning2kei Wrote: Ok, this is my last response to you.... I don't want to be your private math teacher (at least without pay). Quote: I see the issue here... you are considering the calculation where one outcome will affect the other. But each build is technically independent of each other. Just look up at my calculations.... Quote: Because from what you have stated above, if I roll 1001 times my chance to get a success is now more than 100%
(Today 02:12 AM)
Lol, what are you rolling for ? Are you like rolling on the ground or something ?@.@ I guess if you want to roll 1001 times and you end up in fact rolling 1001 times on the ground or anywhere else. Then yes, you have achieved a 100% success on your desire to roll. If you want more than 100% you could roll around more I guess . Quote: If I roll a dice and want a 6, does it mean that if I roll 7 times the probability of me getting a 6 is now ( 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 ) Since the numbers on the die are mutually exclusive. Then Yes that is the correct equation for that probability. However are you
2/9
12/9/13
Since the numbers on the die are mutually exclusive. Then Yes that is the correct equation for that probability. However are you stopping after you have obtained a 6? If not and you are rolling 7 times total no matter what. Then in summery you rolled 7 times total at a rate of 1/6 each time. Giving you a probability of 7/6. Honestly I need to give your math teacher a call... Mr. Morning2kei, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
100% wrong. Go back to statistics class. Probabilities like that are multiplied not added. What you are saying is if you rolled a six sided dice 7 time the probability of getting a six is 7/6 or 116.666%. That is flat out wrong.
IP Address: Logged
Post: #13 | Posts: 1,288 Joined: Aug 2013 Reputation: 56 Warning Level: 0%
Link
Super Moderator
Morning2kei Wrote:
(Today 02:12 AM)
Since the numbers on the die are mutually exclusive. Then Yes that is the correct equation for that probability. However are you stopping after you have obtained a 6? If not and you are rolling 7 times total no matter what. Then in summery you rolled 7 times total at a rate of 1/6 each time. Giving you a probability of 7/6. Honestly I need to give your math teacher a call...
I didn't notice this part that CB quoted - it's unfortunately wrong. The chance of rolling *at least* 1 6 in 7 dice rolls is (1-(1/6))^7 or roughly 27.9% of NO sixes. This means 1-27.9%=72.1% chance of AT LEAST 1 six.. Your chance of rolling at least one 6 in 7 dice rolls is NOT 7/1 or 116.666%. That's just silly. The formula that I used in my above calculation for the steps works all of the time. Because of the small probabilities and low sample size your numbers TURNED OUT roughly correct but they weren't correct calculations. You always have to assume each pull happens independently, they don't add like that. You can confirm this quite quickly without math even. Just roll a 6 sided die 7 times, do this a few times and notice that sometimes in 7 rolls you don't get a 6, when your "calculation" says over 100% chance because EACH ROLL/PULL IS INDEPENDENT!!! I haven't read through the rest of your posts on this other than that quote and your OP because I'm tired from working all day and have a cat on my lap but I'll check through later to correct anything else that might be wrong so that our forumgoers don't get confused and make incorrect calculations. Increasing the probability greatly also allows us to debunk this math rather quickly. Let's assume you have a 75% chance of getting a legendary, and you get 5 pulls. By your math, it would be 75% = .75 ... so (3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4) = 15/4 = 3.75 = 375% chance of getting a legendary? You really think with a 75% chance of pulling a legendary if you pull 5 times that the chance is 375%? I don't even know what to say. By MY math, it would be: (1-.75)^5= .097% chance of NOT getting the legendary. 100%-.097%=99.903% chance of getting at least one legendary. This is the correct chance. Let's make it the most basic example we can. 2 coin flips. By your math, the chance of getting at least 1 head is 50% chance per flip which is (1/2+1/2) = 100%. Flip 2 coins and see for yourself that this isn't actually what happens. Instead, using my math, we get (.5)^2 = 25% chance of NO heads, or 75% chance of at LEAST 1 head. We can easily map this out without math even. There are 4 outcomes
3/9
12/9/13
There are 4 outcomes heads-heads heads-tails tails-heads tails-tails
25% of the time two heads, 50% of the time heads/tails, 25% of the time two tails. As my math says, 75% chance (3/4) of getting at LEAST one head. As you can also see, there is not a 100% chance of getting one heads.
IP Address: Logged
Today, 03:09 AM
Post: #14 | Posts: 54 Joined: Jul 2013 Reputation: 1 Warning Level: 0%
n00basaurus
Uncommon
Here, since people on forums never believe each other's math, let's trust a random site I found that explains statistics: http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/probability/info.htm And I don't see anything wrong with Link's math, and no I didn't pull out my old stats notes from high school to verify anything because I don't plan on doing the build and don't care that much. Did I mention how amusing math arguments on the internet are?
IP Address: Logged
Today, 03:18 AM
Post: #15 | Posts: 992 Joined: May 2013 Reputation: 42 Warning Level: 0%
sinfuldamasta2
Epic
sanmonflo Wrote: Izdubar Wrote: can someone please tell me the answer to 1+1? its either infinite or 42 1+1=window, obviously. & Jeez o Peez, this thread made me lol.
(Today 02:21 AM) (Today 02:16 AM)
ty morning2kei for bothering to attempt to calculate this, but EVERYONE needs to be receptive to constructive criticism. Teachers screw problems up decently often & I'm sure smarter people have to. Humans make mistakes, other humans may notice them & point them out with correction, or may make mistake & correct you when you were correct, or you might both be wrong. If this post is odd, it is not due to the fact that it's 4:20am (coincidentally, 2nd lol) & that I've gotten 13 hours of sleep in the past 72 hours.
List of my trades. kik -> SinfulDaMasta

IP Address: Logged
4/9
12/9/13
Today, 03:21 AM
Post: #16 | Posts: 2,772 Joined: May 2013 Reputation: 132 Warning Level: 0%
Starchythecandy
(*^^*)
Well, I don't see any constructive criticism here. I just see people blasting at each other.
I acce pt #the struggle | DO T W ik ia | 0/18 Mam m e tuns
IP Address: Logged
Today, 03:25 AM
Post: #17 | Posts: 223 Joined: Sep 2013 Reputation: 5 Warning Level: 0%
Morning2kei
1/2 of an Nux bit
Link Wrote: Actually GQ's statement isn't wrong he just did his math wrong >_<
(Today 02:52 AM)
A simpler way to think about it (I've got experience through linear algebra so cut the sassy attitude) is to think about the chances you will NOT get the legendary. The statistics on the chances of getting 0 are just easier and easier to understand 1-the chance you won't get legendary will give you the chance you will. He was correct in saying that .994^12 is the chance you won't get a legendary, he just apparently calculated that wrong >< .994^12 is .930, 1-.930 is a 7% chance on the final step that you'd get the legendary. Your calculation is (roughly, rounding and such) the same 7%. Your post can be summed up in a much simpler/shorter way for the more math-y people. I'll do it here. It's essentially 1-the chance of not getting one Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step 1: .05% chance (this one is obvious) 2: (1-.001)^2 = 99.8% chance of no legendary. 0.2% chance of legendary on this step. 3: .9985^3 = 99.55% chance of no legendary, 0.45% chance of legendary 4: .998^3= 99.4% chance of no legendary, 0.6% chance of legendary 5:.997^5 = 98.5% chance of no legendary, 1.5% chance of legendary 6:.996^7= 95.87% chance of no legendary, 4.13% chance of legendary 7: .995^9 = 95.59% chance of no legendary, 4.41% chance of legendary 8:.994^11 = 93.6% chance of no legendary, 6.4% chance of the legendary 9: same as 8 10: .994^12 = 93% chance of no legendary, 7% chance of legendary.
Feel free to use this math, no need to give me credit as these calculations are SUPER easy and I really don't care. Also, cut the holier-than-thou-im-so-cool-for-knowing-basic-math thing. Honestly, it's really annoying. You have a bad habit of insulting
5/9
12/9/13
Also, cut the holier-than-thou-im-so-cool-for-knowing-basic-math thing. Honestly, it's really annoying. You have a bad habit of insulting people (calling me "violated" and suggesting a bunch of insulting things about gqhong) so consider this a warning. You tend to ignore anyone else's opinion while insisting that yours is correct and that everyone that doesn't agree with you is *insert random insult here*. This kind of discussion is not productive and is detrimental to the community as a whole. Thank you for the calculations, but if you cannot respond to people without being a jerk I'll have to take action.
O man... Link Your acting like a real meanie btw. You simply assume I am Quote: holier-than-thou-im-so-cool-for-knowing-basic-math thing , which I am definitely not. And now you are trying to antagonize me again Also Quote: You tend to ignore anyone else's opinion while insisting that yours is correct and that everyone that doesn't agree with you is *insert random insult here*. Where did you find my insults on this thread ? I simply said qq didn't understand math which I was 100% correct. If I ignore other's opinion I would simply not respond at all. I not in fact took qq's opinion in mind, I even took my time to teach him how I did mine. .
Quote: Feel free to use this math, no need to give me credit as these calculations are SUPER easy and I really don't care. You are being extremely biased to my thread that I put honestly time and efforts in with actual calculations compared to my respondent's. Since you are being biased, I can be biased as well and say "It seems to me you simply stole my calculations, and did the probability of not happening. (Quite easy after you have my outlines )" But I m not going say that, because I respect people's work when there are actually work being showed although yours is not elaborated at all. And please don't say you already knew the calculation. Because I checked and no one prior to me did this calculation in totality. If you knew the calculations why didn't you post it before mine? Why did you wait all this time and post your calculation right after I post mine ? Honestly don't think for a moment that you are a moderator with pink on you, means you can push people around. I didn't vote for you, oh wait no one voted, you simply got it through a monarchy . If you suspend/ban me without anything hard evidence, I'll simply contact the admin and we'll go from there. Otherwise please be quite, sit back down, and respect my work. I demand freshly released Paragons be nerfed :3... lol
IP Address: Logged
Today, 03:33 AM (This post was last modified: Today 03:38 AM by sanmonflo.)
Post: #18 | Posts: 821 Joined: Aug 2013
sanmonflo
6/9
12/9/13
Epic
Joined: Aug 2013 Reputation: 46 Warning Level: 0%
ok so before we start some stupid war, I agree with Links calculations. I set it up a similar way where you take 1 -.999^2 (this is for step 2), where .999 is the probability of the event NOT occurring and 2 being the number of times we run the experiment. As we go down the list it becomes 1-.985^3 etc etc. Its late so I don't feel like showing it all but Link's math seems accurate. I will even go ahead and post I link I just found which should hopefully lighten the mood and explain why we do the problem like this...http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/...probablity My Shop - Thank you CurseLax for the awesome sig!
IP Address: Logged
Today, 03:37 AM (This post was last modified: Today 03:45 AM by Morning2kei.)
Post: #19 | Posts: 223 Joined: Sep 2013 Reputation: 5 Warning Level: 0%
Morning2kei
1/2 of an Nux bit
Lets see total time spend on calculation about 30 minuets, total time debating with qq about 30 minuets. 1+ hour of my time spend. The reward= Woot players bashing me :3, I can see why people don't do these kind of mathematical calculation on here now. Honestly me done with this forum, and I hope Link gets some sort of punishment for being an aggressiver, and extremely biased toward certain players (me). Lesson learned never contribute anything helpful here :3 Reason: People will hate you for it :3 Btw the core problem here is "One events" v.s "Independent Events." Interested players can read this: Food for thought. Todaloo defenders :3 Iam outta here .
I demand freshly released Paragons be nerfed :3... lol
IP Address: Logged
7/9
12/9/13
Post: #20 | Posts: 1,288 Joined: Aug 2013 Reputation: 56 Warning Level: 0%
Link
Super Moderator
First of all, these calculations are extremely simple. I didn't post them BECAUSE of how simple they are. I've done these same calculations hundreds of times in the blood brothers forums, search through my posts over there and you'll find hundreds of calculation posts. Yours are wrong. I'm not going to suspend or ban you. However, this is the second website that I have moderated for him, and the first one was at least 10x the size of this and I kept it his healthy cash cow for about a year before stepping down. That website was much larger than this one and I have a ton of experience being a moderator. I don't like to be the bad guy and I hate taking any action at all, honestly. I don't respect your work because your work is WRONG in this case and you've laughed at others and told them to go back to school while being arrogant and wrong. When I see a post that's wrong, I correct it. People don't appreciate and bash your posts because they're not correct. How much time you spent on it is entirely irrelevant when it's incorrect. Thanks for putting in so much time, I mean that honestly, but we're not just going to tell you you're right out of sympathy for how much time you spent making this. If you didn't respond so badly to any responses, others wouldn't be so negative towards you. Negativity begets negativity. People are so mean to you because you are mean to them. I'm sorry, but your post just isn't helpful if it's wrong. You may have intended to be helpful, but posting incorrect math isn't :\ I do respect the work you've put in like starting fighter threads and stuff. Just be careful when you post math like this because it can very quickly end up wrong and misleading. Honestly I apologize if this got a bit out of hand and I'll probably have to clean it up in the morning. I really think we could get along if you were able to handle corrections and discussion. We all appreciate the work you put in but you need to make sure it's correct before making a post like this :\
IP Address: Logged
Next Oldest | Next Newest

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next
Enter Keywords
Search Thread
Quick Reply Message

Type your reply to this message here. Signature Disable Smilies Close Thread Stick Thread
Post Reply
Preview Post
Possibly Related Threads...

Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post 11-25-2013 04:09 PM Last Post: C raskey 11-07-2013 03:07 AM Last Post: C andlejack 10-31-2013 01:34 PM Last Post: ScottGer76
How many Pixite/ Voxite do you save before you build? Spooxite Build is back! New DOXITE build, Aniasse, Lamenkhuar and Rhosemadder oh my!
View a Printable Version
TurtleSlap ares iamghandi
15 9 3
429 359 318
Inline Post Moderation:
Delete Posts
Go (0)
Clear
8/9
12/9/13
Send this Thread to a Friend Subscribe to this thread
Moderation Options:
Edit / View Thread Notes
Go Go
Forum Jump: User(s) browsing this thread: ginger_hammer, Link , sinfuldamasta2, 18 Guest(s)
-- General
9/9

M2 KP 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

M2 KP 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

12/9/13

Forums Search Member List Calendar Help

Pages (3): Previous

Posts: 1,288 Joined: Aug 2013 Reputation: 56 Warning Level: 0%

Free Homework Helper

(Today 02:12 AM)

(Today 02:12 AM)

There are 4 outcomes heads-heads heads-tails tails-heads tails-tails

Post: #14 | Posts: 54 Joined: Jul 2013 Reputation: 1 Warning Level: 0%

(Today 02:21 AM) (Today 02:16 AM)

List of my trades. kik -> SinfulDaMasta

I acce pt #the struggle | DO T W ik ia | 0/18 Mam m e tuns

(Today 02:52 AM)

Post: #18 | Posts: 821 Joined: Aug 2013

Joined: Aug 2013 Reputation: 46 Warning Level: 0%

I demand freshly released Paragons be nerfed :3... lol

Next Oldest | Next Newest

Quick Reply Message

Possibly Related Threads...

TurtleSlap ares iamghandi

429 359 318

Inline Post Moderation:

Edit / View Thread Notes

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi