{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/28/2014 2:37:21 PM
3
You obviously have never taken statistics in your life. That's not how a random probability works. The chance of it happening 4 weeks in a row is still the same percentage. It does not make it any less likely for it to happen the next week or the week after. The percentage will never change because it's said to be completely random.
English
-
You're talking a statistic of one flip. Which is not the same as op is talking about. If you flip a coin 100 times, what's your chance of never hitting tails?
-
On a RANDOM probability it cannot be based off of the AMOUNT OF TIMES it comes. I'm saying for him to assume it's not RNG based on what has happened is invalid. Just like flipping a coin 100 times. Each TIME you flip it there is a 50% chance for it to be heads. Sure it's unlikely that it will never land on tails, but being relevant to the post, that does not make it not RNG. That is what my entire reply is about. His math is correct, but it's incorrect to say it's not RNG because of his math.
-
If you had said those last few sentences in your original post and stopped calling people idiots, you would've gotten a lot less hate.
-
If people would read what I originally said properly I wouldn't have a reason to call them idiots.
-
Might want to take a look at his newest edit.
-
He's STATING he's not RNG in his original post and I was proving it wrong that you cannot use probability to debunk RNG. That was the ENTIRE purpose of my response. Personally I believe there is an outside influence, but this does not prove that it's not RNG.
-
Now you're talking sense. I will also continue to believe he's RNG based until I see definitive proof from someone at bungie saying otherwise. Must've forgot the part where he made a claim that it was RNG or not.
-
Lol it's in the title of the post! :p
-
That would explain why xD
-
Let me change the perspective I guess. If you were rolling dice with someone, your number was one & the other persons was 6, the dice lands on 6 every time for 50 rolls, do think that something is not happening correctly? Or that you saw a miracle?
-
All I'm saying in my response is that u can not base RNG on probability. Maybe I should of been more extensive and clear. My apologies.
-
You are correct on a week to week basis. OP is correct looking at the 4 week basis. E.g. There are four horses of equal talent. There will be four races. Per race each has the same probability of winning. Per four races the possible combinations is raised lowering the prob of being 100% correct.
-
When measuring the fact that it DID happen 4 weeks in a row Op is correct. I tutored statistics in college.
-
What I'm saying is that it doesn't make it any less probable for it to happen, and based on his post, it does not make it not RNG. You really can't base it off how many times it happens in a row if it is completely random. It will still be the same percentage regardless of how many times it happened in the past weeks.
-
You are correct if you are only determining what is possible to come next week. When you're given a timeframe of 4 weeks the probability of it happening again over the course of another set of 4 weeks is what op stated. Moot points regardless but its fun to look at numbers
-
[quote]It will still be the same percentage regardless of how many times it happened in the past weeks.[/quote] Correct, which is why the OP raised 0.1666 to the fourth power. He never modified the week-to-week odds of the Vestments appearing, but the outcome was an astoundingly low percentage chance of the item appearing 4 times [b]in a row[/b]. Appearing =/= Appearing Consecutively Think of it like rolling a six-sided die. Every time you roll, you have a 1-in-6 chance of landing on a particular number - let's say 6. Roll 6 times, the odds for each number stay the same. But it's very mathematically improbable that you will land on 6, 6 times in a row. It's possible, just highly improbable. [b][i]That's[/i][/b] how statistics work. You and OP are both correct, just arguing different things.
-
I'm arguing that you cannot base probability on a RNG based factor.
