both twg and molten seem a bit scummy, but we dont have a lot of room to afford a mislynch, so just being cautious(idk if its the right word)Who would you rather be lynched
That's fair...one thing I will point out is that it's worse to no lynch at this pointboth twg and molten seem a bit scummy, but we dont have a lot of room to afford a mislynch, so just being cautious(idk if its the right word)
yeah I know, I 100% do want to vote, but we arent out of time yetThat's fair...one thing I will point out is that it's worse to no lynch at this point
Your statement would be true if people claimed/died in the same order as the letters that got rolled, however they're not.We only have to determine what the chances are of there being at least 1 B generated in the rolls that we don't already know. And the probability of a roleblocker doesn't seem lower because of the roles we already know it is lower.
You are claiming I'm using faulty statistics to show how the estimated probability isn't accurate, yet fail to even challenge my two other points.What do you mean the probably presented isn't accurate? It absolutely is. (...) You're trying to defend weak's claim with faulty statistics.
Just quickly am going to point out that the x * probability to find to probability of getting something in x rolls, isn't exactly correct. For instance that would mean the chance for getting a role blocker in 20 rolls would be 100% (0.05 * 20), and we all know that there for instance is possible to get 20T's, which means it isn't 100%.
The probability is low, yes, but the probability estimated right now isn't exactly accurate, since the roles in the game is chosen in a more complex way. For instance we haven't in Choco's calculation considered the cannot be only one more V or M (since we don't have an innocent child and can't have two 1-shot vigs).
That the chance of Weak being role blocker has a 50 times bigger higher chance than 'Weak as town role blocker blocking mafia role blocker, who was blocking a PR doing an action with impact on the game' happening.Explain what you mean by "50 times more likely"
A multiplication of a very small number is still a small numberThat the chance of Weak being role blocker has a 50 times bigger higher chance than 'Weak as town role blocker blocking mafia role blocker, who was blocking a PR doing an action with impact on the game' happening.
Incorrect. 5% chance over 20 tries would be calculated using the formula 1 - (1 - 0.05) ^ 20. In which case, the chance of one single B in all those rolls becomes 64%.For instance that would mean the chance for getting a role blocker in 20 rolls would be 100% (0.05 * 20)
The order roles are rolled in is completely and utterly irrelevant.Your statement would be true if people claimed/died in the same order as the letters that got rolled, however they're not.
And you're not disputing that claim.You are claiming I'm using faulty statistics to show how the estimated probability isn't accurate
I've addressed both of those "points."yet fail to even challenge my two other points.
And the second in the same post you just quoted yourself....It's an average. Meaning that on 20 rolls, you'll usually have approximately 1 town roleblocker.
We only have to determine what the chances are of there being at least 1 B generated in the rolls that we don't already know.
Incorrect, blockers have a 5% chance to get rolled, every other PR is 15%.But that goes for literally any of the PRs letters.
No that sounds about right...yeah ok I'm still immediately doubting myself because how does 5% become 18% in 4 tries THIS DOESN'T GEL WITH MY MATHEMATICAL INTUITION.
They are, but the order people claim in and die isn't.The order roles are rolled in is completely and utterly irrelevant.
And your "point" is that I'm using faulty statistics since the estimated probability is only "approximately" when I point at scenarios showing that these calculations don't work?I've addressed both of those "points."
The first here: (quote broke)
So it's relevant how exactly?They are, but the order people claim in and die isn't.
And how exactly don't they work?And your "point" is that I'm using faulty statistics since the estimated probability is only "approximately" when I point at scenarios showing that these calculations don't work?