Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="juggerulez" data-source="post: 6736639" data-attributes="member: 98250">First of all: I come with an olive branch, with the sole thirst of knowledge, so don't shoot me <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Since this confrontation happened, I wanted to do a little research. Long story short: apparently we're both wrong.A mathematician friend of mine, who uses maths on a daily basis and whose maths I can't even fathom the complexity of, told me that this is not the right way to do statistics, and since his kung-fu is way better than mine (that's assured) and apparently better than yours too (again, I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ), I've asked him to elaborate his statement. Here we go:If you reroll 1s and 2s on any die, let's say a d6. You pool together all the results and then divide them by their number, which means 1+2+3+4+5+6+1+2+3+4+5+6+3+4+5+6 divided by 6+6+4.so apparently a GWF's d6 does 3.75 on average instead of 3.5... and instead of "my" 3.83 and "your" 4.17.D4 is 1+2+3+4+1+2+3+4+3+4 divided by 4+4+2 which does 2.7D6 is 3.75D8 is 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+3+4+5+6+7+8 divided by 8+8+6 which does 4.77D10 is 162/28 = 5.77D12 is 231/34 = 6.79Now a question arises: who's right? I really can't believe that in a whole community of nerds (I'm one too so it's not used in a derogatory way <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ), there is not a single maths savvy dude who disproved "your" maths...so since he's a mathematician for vocation, and since he worked on artificial intelligences too, I'm quite confident that he's not wrong...so......can you feel my perplexion? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm    :-S" data-shortname=":-S" />Let's assume for a brief moment that he's right and we're all wrong... am I the only one that now thinks that GWF is strongly overrated? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" /></blockquote>

Verification