|
|
Post by HungryPony27 on Sept 28, 2018 17:00:30 GMT -5
I'm not a math person but I don't think that's how math works Legend. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so I'm trying to explain it. Roll a 1d10 twice. You have a 60% chance to hit 1-6 Do it again and you still have 60% BUT to do that twice in a row halves the chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Skelda on Sept 28, 2018 17:01:07 GMT -5
So like if we didn't know discards your math makes sense.
But we already know that some people rolled one Town, one scum, or one Third for sure which means that the odds of rolling anything else as your other option is equal.
Once the unlikely event of rolling a Third or scum has already happened for example, that has no effect on the second roll
|
|
|
|
Post by Skelda on Sept 28, 2018 17:03:28 GMT -5
I'm not a math person but I don't think that's how math works Legend. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so I'm trying to explain it. Roll a 1d10 twice. You have a 60% chance to hit 1-6 Do it again and you still have 60% BUT to do that twice in a row halves the chance. Sure. But if someone rolled dice twice and then I reveal that their first roll was a six, does that mean that the second roll is less likely to have been a six? No. Your math is wrong |
|
|
|
Post by HungryPony27 on Sept 28, 2018 17:04:35 GMT -5
So like if we didn't know discards your math makes sense. But we already know that some people rolled one Town, one scum, or one Third for sure which means that the odds of rolling anything else as your other option is equal. Once the unlikely event of rolling a Third or scum has already happened for example, that has no effect on the second roll It does indirectly. That would mean that a 60% chance actually doesn't fluctuate with the amount of times you have to hit it. You're saying that hitting 60% 1ce = 60% 2ce which is just wrong |
|
|
|
Post by Zinnia on Sept 28, 2018 17:07:45 GMT -5
I don't like math. I read your long posts, Legend, but I don't take it strongly into consideration. I don't care for relying on stats, it's less fun to me. So, personally I won't vote because of them. Unless it's LyLo or something like that.
I liked that post of yours, Skelda, because the "I was scum last time!" argument is annoying. I believe it's called gamblers fallacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by HungryPony27 on Sept 28, 2018 17:08:24 GMT -5
I'm trying to explain it. Roll a 1d10 twice. You have a 60% chance to hit 1-6 Do it again and you still have 60% BUT to do that twice in a row halves the chance. Sure. But if someone rolled dice twice and then I reveal that their first roll was a six, does that mean that the second roll is less likely to have been a six? No. Your math is wrong No, both our maths are correct. We choose to apply them in different ways. I think it's better to look at it as if I knew nothing because that's how the randomizer does it (or should do) It doesnt take in account what happened before and neither should we. But that's a matter of opinion and I doubt it'll help us much. |
|
|
|
Post by Skelda on Sept 28, 2018 17:08:29 GMT -5
So like if we didn't know discards your math makes sense. But we already know that some people rolled one Town, one scum, or one Third for sure which means that the odds of rolling anything else as your other option is equal. Once the unlikely event of rolling a Third or scum has already happened for example, that has no effect on the second roll It does indirectly. That would mean that a 60% chance actually doesn't fluctuate with the amount of times you have to hit it. You're saying that hitting 60% 1ce = 60% 2ce which is just wrong No, you're wrong. It's less likely to roll two scum than a Town and a scum obviously, but once you've already rolled a scum or Town the odds are the same for the second roll. And that's the situation we're in because we have discards. |
|
|
|
Post by Skelda on Sept 28, 2018 17:11:27 GMT -5
Sure. But if someone rolled dice twice and then I reveal that their first roll was a six, does that mean that the second roll is less likely to have been a six? No. Your math is wrong No, both our maths are correct. We choose to apply them in different ways. I think it's better to look at it as if I knew nothing because that's how the randomizer does it (or should do) It doesnt take in account what happened before and neither should we. But that's a matter of opinion and I doubt it'll help us much. But your action (narrowing your choices down to the people with Town discards) does include information. Your math is flawed because you're reaching a wrong conclusion (that it's more likely for someone with a visible Town discard to be scum than someone with a visible scum discard). That's a wrong conclusion |
|
|
|
Post by HungryPony27 on Sept 28, 2018 17:12:13 GMT -5
It does indirectly. That would mean that a 60% chance actually doesn't fluctuate with the amount of times you have to hit it. You're saying that hitting 60% 1ce = 60% 2ce which is just wrong No, you're wrong. It's less likely to roll two scum than a Town and a scum obviously, but once you've already rolled a scum or Town the odds are the same for the second roll. And that's the situation we're in because we have discards. But we're trying to decide what the players got before the discard. The discard (the revealing of the die) has no effect on what already happened. Therefore it should not be mathed after one another. If this was like: Do you want this roll Nah Then this is your role Your method is correct. In this case you're sadly wrong. Either way, no point in continuing if we're both going to be stubborn over math. |
|
|
|
Post by Skelda on Sept 28, 2018 17:13:01 GMT -5
I don't like math. I read your long posts, Legend, but I don't take it strongly into consideration. I don't care for relying on stats, it's less fun to me. So, personally I won't vote because of them. Unless it's LyLo or something like that. I liked that post of yours, Skelda, because the "I was scum last time!" argument is annoying. I believe it's called gamblers fallacy. Yes it is the Gambler's fallacy and Legend is employing a version of it right now. |
|
|
|
Post by HungryPony27 on Sept 28, 2018 17:14:53 GMT -5
I don't like math. I read your long posts, Legend, but I don't take it strongly into consideration. I don't care for relying on stats, it's less fun to me. So, personally I won't vote because of them. Unless it's LyLo or something like that. I liked that post of yours, Skelda, because the "I was scum last time!" argument is annoying. I believe it's called gamblers fallacy. Yes it is the Gambler's fallacy and Legend is employing a version of it right now. Aye. I am. I wholly agree. But despite it being a thing, I find that the math works out. |
|
|
|
Post by Skelda on Sept 28, 2018 17:15:07 GMT -5
No, you're wrong. It's less likely to roll two scum than a Town and a scum obviously, but once you've already rolled a scum or Town the odds are the same for the second roll. And that's the situation we're in because we have discards. But we're trying to decide what the players got before the discard. The discard (the revealing of the die) has no effect on what already happened. Therefore it should not be mathed after one another. If this was like: Do you want this roll Nah Then this is your role Your method is correct. In this case you're sadly wrong. Either way, no point in continuing if we're both going to be stubborn over math. No. The order makes no difference and a player's knowledge makes no difference. I don't use math to determine my votes Legend. You're the one who brought this up by using bad math to decide who to vote for. |
|
|
|
Post by Skelda on Sept 28, 2018 17:17:56 GMT -5
Yes it is the Gambler's fallacy and Legend is employing a version of it right now. Aye. I am. I wholly agree. But despite it being a thing, I find that the math works out. It does not. It's fallacious and wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Zinnia on Sept 28, 2018 17:18:07 GMT -5
Legend wasn't lying, you do disagree about everything.  |
|
|
|
Post by HungryPony27 on Sept 28, 2018 17:19:50 GMT -5
But we're trying to decide what the players got before the discard. The discard (the revealing of the die) has no effect on what already happened. Therefore it should not be mathed after one another. If this was like: Do you want this roll Nah Then this is your role Your method is correct. In this case you're sadly wrong. Either way, no point in continuing if we're both going to be stubborn over math. No. The order makes no difference and a player's knowledge makes no difference. I don't use math to determine my votes Legend. You're the one who brought this up by using bad math to decide who to vote for. Aye. I like to go by my math when I vote and not know anything. It's proven to work for me in the past. Either way I'm reading Skelda as Town. There's no way he'd try and correct me on what he finds a bad way of voting as scum. I think he'd let me do a stupid. Either that or I hit Skelda's partner in Katie and he decides to point out a thing I've been consistently using throughout my games to protect her. My gambler's fallacy says the latter. My brain says the former. Either way I still like My Katie vote, even more now. |
|
