What's your "I have the worst luck" EQ moment(s)?

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I’d say after getting heads 40 times in a row you’re most likely to get heads next - it is more likely you have an imbalanced or double headed coin than you’ve got a one in a trillion streak of heads on a equally balanced coin.

This is the true Bayesian way - it's time to update your priors.

https://xkcd.com/1132/

[Goregasmic]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, you would not have a higher percent chance of getting tails after 40 heads in a row. that's what the other people are implying by using the word "probability"

No one is saying this. They basically explained the low likelihood of getting a particular result in a string of the same event. Both concepts coexist. You're either trolling or you have no understanding of the concept of probabilities. The good thing is they still exist wether you believe in them or not.

Like, people calculated you have 72% chance to get a raster of guk spawn if you spend 10 hours there. You still have only 5% chance per spawn and it doesn't mean the spawn at the 10th hour is a 72% chance to be raster. Both statements are true regardless.

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I’d say after getting heads 40 times in a row you’re most likely to get heads next - it is more likely you have an imbalanced or double headed coin than you’ve got a one in a trillion streak of heads on a equally balanced coin.

or...

[moozh]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are not.

This is the gambler's fallacy.

One failure does not increase your chance on success on the next attempt.

Don't spread lies.

From mathisfun.com (https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/prob...dependent.html)

In our case, there are two possible outcomes: success (item drops), or failure (item does not drop). Think of success like being heads on a coin, and failure being tails (the difference being that our ‘coin’ is not 50/50).

If the chance in a single kill for the item to drop is 40% (success), the chance for the item to not drop is 60% (failure). The chance to get failure five times in a row (i.e., five independent failure events) is 0.6*0.6*0.6*0.6*0.6.

[cd288]

I don't mean this as an insult, but I've never understood the sacrificing your health for something like a manastone that has niche case use and is really only useful for a couple classes.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Goregasmic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No one is saying this. They basically explained the low likelihood of getting a particular result in a string of the same event. Both concepts coexist. You're either trolling or you have no understanding of the concept of probabilities. The good thing is they still exist wether you believe in them or not.

Like, people calculated you have 72% chance to get a raster of guk spawn if you spend 10 hours there. You still have only 5% chance per spawn and it doesn't mean the spawn at the 10th hour is a 72% chance to be raster. Both statements are true regardless.

One of these is probability, one of these is gambler's fallacy. The 72% unreliable. You cannot string failures together to assume success.

[Goregasmic]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

One of these is probability, one of these is gambler's fallacy. The 72% unreliable. You cannot string failures together to assume success.

You're either arguing in bad faith or living above your intellectual means. Have a good day sir.

[WarpathEQ]

Learned last night that killing and respawning a quest turn in NPC does not actually reset their turn in log. Caused me to mess up a $50k MQ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[cd288]

Originally Posted by Goregasmic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're either arguing in bad faith or living above your intellectual means. Have a good day sir.

Lol agreed. This dude is being so odd about probabilities.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Goregasmic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're either arguing in bad faith or living above your intellectual means. Have a good day sir.

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.