![]() |
#51
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
had something similar needed to do my necro epic and wanted to save all my dkp for that CT drop. europa merged to remedy to lux to darkwind to rampage to tr to ib and everytime the dkp got reset and i never got the CT drop. Still havent completed my epic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] | |||
#52
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
| |||
#53
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
| |||
#54
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
However, if the event is performed enough times in succession the law of averages tells you that the past results do in fact influence future outcomes in that past annomolies in one direction will correct over time by compensating in the other direction and returning to the average. Perhaps the gambler's falicy that the probability folks like to reference is in fact a more indepth phenomenon of how the world actually works from real experience and something that the science of probability doesn't properly weigh when viewed inside of their own vacuum. There are many examples of how things work in a vacuum not being the true outcome in real life where other competing variables exist. My personal experience has been that upholding a stronger belief in the law of averages over statistical probabilities has yielded positive results versus others that live in the vacuum of probabilities alone when applied to EQ. | |||
#55
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
Because this is a typically "one and done" tailoring combine, you're not going to see that leveling out over a large sample size (example: having 6 combine successes in a row). So people's perceptions are skewed. Basically the lower your attempt / sample size, the less power the "law of averages" will affect you. It's much much more likely to have skewed results with 4 coin flips than with 1,000 coin flips.
__________________
[59 Troubadour] Saisu (Wood Elf)
[40 Paladin] Jharu (Erudite) | |||
#56
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
To set a clear foundation, I think we're all talking about calculating the probability of independent events. The success or failure of a tradeskill combine is unrelated to the outcome of past tradeskills combine. Each tradeskill combine of a given item is an independent event with an identical probability of success. Everyone agrees with this, right? The nuance with calculating probabilities of the outcome of a series of independent events comes with the point in time when you're making the calculation. The probability of flipping a coin 1 time is 50%. The probability of flipping a coin 10 times and having them all come up heads is 0.5^10, or about one in a thousand. I think everyone would agree with this too. if you've already flipped a coin 9 times and they're all heads, the probability of the next coin flip being heads is still 50%. At this point in time the probability of getting 10 heads in a row is 50%, because nine of the flips are in the past and they're already heads. The gambler's fallacy is to think that because there's less than a 1% chance of getting 10 head flips in a row, the next flip is almost certainly going to be tails. This is not true. It's 50%. (This is disregarding the possibility that the coin is weighted or double-headed, we're assuming it's an actually fair coin). What you're talking about with laws of averages and reversions to the mean is different from how you're applying it. You said "past anomalies in one direction will correct over time by compensating in the other direction". This is not correct. An accurate way to say it would be "past anomalies in one direction will be have their impact diluted by adding enough additional coin flips." Image you're going to flip a coin 100 times. You expect you'll get about 50 heads, plus or minus a couple. The first 10 flips are heads. An incorrect understanding of probability is think "of the next 90 flips, its likely there will be more tails than head". That is precisely the gambler's fallacy. A correct understanding would be "the next 90 flips are likely going to be 50% outcomes with about 45 heads, so I expect the total number of heads will be about 55, more or less". The next 90 outcomes will swamp the effect of the first 10 heads. But it's not "compensating in the other direction". Anyway, I hope you don't take this as a personal attack. You've been very helpful to me on these forums in the past, and what you wrote is broadly right in general, just wrong on the exact mechanism by how it happens. | |||
#57
|
|||
|
![]() Well thank you bcbrown.
I dunno if others were trying to say that and failed or they were wrong. The bit that helped me the most was after the run of heads that probability is done. The next roll/cast is unaffected but that. The next is 50/50. If the coins aren't flipped yet, that's when the "the chances of getting 10 heads in a row by multiplying" comes into play. Wow that is really difficult to articulate. But I get it (what bc was saying). I hope it helped others. | ||
#58
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
Before the coins are flipped ten times it's safe to say the probability of 9 or 10 heads is very low, which you can do the math on to calculate. That doesn't mean it won't happen, and if you're in a run of 9 heads in a row the pre-flipping probability calculation has no impact on what the 10th flip will be. Another way to look at it. If I bet you money that if I flip a coin 10 times it will be heads every time, you'd take that bet. If I've flipped a coin 9 times and it's heads and I bet you that it's going to be heads on the 10th flip, you might not take the bet because that one flip is still 50%. | |||
#59
|
|||
|
![]() I failed the final trivial combine of the Shawl quest. IIRC it's not like, the worst thing in the world, but I did have to go back and farm a handful of items to remake the pieces to do the combine again.
That being said, I think I two shot the 208 skill one at like 168 skill? Maybe it took three tries, it wasn't that bad. | ||
#60
|
|||
|
![]() wanted to do Sparring armor for my monk
80 tailoring 1 hour to farm 6 of those escaped frogloks failed the trivial combine | ||
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|