Quote:
Originally Posted by DMN
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The problem here is how you qualify "decent evidence", especially given the original source of the "expected average". To me, when it comes to random nobodies' claims on the internet, beyond 1 standard deviation I start to expect some some bullshit is afoot and virtually assured of it by the time I get anywhere near 2.
.
|
It’s not really a problem? Statistics exists specifically to quantify what counts as “decent evidence”. A string of 160 failures in a Bernoulli trial with a 2% success rate (twice what the courier page says) is about 4%.
So about four in every hundred would-be lords of the ring will see such a stretch of bad luck.
Given how many people camp that thing, it’s not at all surprising that you know someone who is experiencing such a run. I guess if you know exactly two people who have ever camped the ring, you’d be in some reasonable territory. But you likely know many people who have and you’ve only got data on a pair of recent bad runs. So it’s a biased data set.
Again, if you want to call the wiki bull shit or argue that the drop rate has changed, you need a run of bad luck so exceptional as to fall outside expectations. 160 is just not that surprising.
Edit: I found the 3.5% source! It is based on 224 kills. So 3.5% is the point-estimate, with the margin of error that means the drop rate was most likely between 1.5% - 7%. So, as above, a string o 160 failures is consistent with that dataset. That is, if you think the drop rate has changed, you'd need to find evidence that the drop rate is decidedly outside that interval than your two friends' recent string of (not outside expectations) run of bad luck.
Would be interesting to collect a fair sample of people’s camping experiences to refine that estimate, though!