Quote:
Originally Posted by Samoht
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Just hate it when people intentionally conflate probability in this game to justify their bad luck. It sucks that the original complainer failed the shawl combine 6 times, but it sounds like they need to raise their tailoring skill.
Someone telling them on the forums that it's statistically improbable to fail that many times is just factually incorrect. It's an anomaly, for sure, but it's still within acceptable terms of probability.
I'm sorry that you cannot fathom that the chance for failure was still real after 6 tries, but the previous 5 tries do not have any influence on the sixth attempt.
I wish people would stop pushing the gambler's fallacy as probability. It's a huge mistake that lots of people make.
It's obvious that I can't fix stupid, though.
|
This game is an interesting life lesson in the direct competition between statistical probabilities and the law of averages. Technically a prior event doesn't impact the RNG of the current event in a vacuum of probabilities.
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.