Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 7736044" data-attributes="member: 2629">That is not how most people think about them, but what I said is accurate.  IF: * More than 50% of groups do not use variant humans.* I have played in 8 distinct independent games that had the normal probability of using the variant human rules.* I did not encounter games without using the human variant rules as an option.Then, there should have been less than a 0.4% chance, or 1 in 250ish, that I'd find everybody playing with variant humans.  If the chances were 60%/40%, the odds drop to 1 in  ~1525.  So, I'm saying, that if the odds of me experiencing that phenomena were worse than 1 in 250 - maybe even 1 in 1525 or worse - it is more likely that the data is flawed than that I actually experienced those long odds.  What I am saying is more comparable to looking at the results of a series of die rolls or coin flips to determine if it is a cheaters die or weighted coin rather than looking at population probabilities.  Another thing to consider: Why did you post this thread, Morrus?  Because it would surprise people to hear what was said, or because the results matched common expectation.  The former - it was surprising news.  However, when you have surprising news, especially when it is based upon statistics, it is a good time to second guess your statistics.For both of the above reasons - because the results do not come close to expectations, and because there is such an improbable chance for me to experience the results I've seen if the odds are as they say - I think their statistics are hokey.</blockquote>

Verification