Quote:
Originally Posted by Isomorphic
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Under the assumption that the expected drop rate is 3.5%, you are already more than 2 standard deviations away from your expected number of drops after 160 kills.
|
This would be true except:
(1) this isn't a "fair sample" so a strict application of standard deviations isn't really appropriate. My guess is that DMN knows way more than two people who've camped the ring, and is *only* reporting the two most egregious bad luck runs he's seen (because most people only talk about really bad or really good runs of luck; you brag when you get it in <10 couriers, and complain when it takes >50, but no one spontaneously posts in guildchat or whatever about that time they got it in 31 pops).
(2) there's a margin of error associated with the 3.5% estimate. If we think the drop rate has changed, we'd need either a more representative sample of camp results, or a staggeringly large outlier dataset (which this is not) given the uncertainty in the 3.5% estimate & the bias of the sample.
Edit: To put it another way, if you take the 224 kills with 8 rings the 3.5% is based on, and just add another 160 pops with 0 rings from the "DMN dataset" here (which, again, you shouldn't do as the DMN is biased in ways the original isn't) you get an estimate for the drop rate of...between 1 and 4%. Even with the bias reporting, it doesn't exclude the 3.5% estimate. It's just not that bad a run.
Edit edit: To be even more precise: DMN's friends would need to observe 221 total pops without a ring to *just barely* exclude 3.5% if you lumped them together (which, again again, you **cannot do** since the friends-complaining-about-bad-luck dataset is heavily biased).