History Main / ArtisticLicenseStatistics

26th Oct '16 12:36:50 PM Kid
Is there an issue? Send a Message


## To be guaranteed a win, you'd need an infinite amount of money and time. If you had infinite money, you wouldn't need to bet. :)

to:

## To be guaranteed a win, you'd need an infinite amount of money and time. If you had infinite money, you wouldn't need to bet. :)
26th Oct '16 12:28:48 PM Kid
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* '''Decision-Making and Probability''': When a reasonable decision was made according to the odds, where the odds are calculatable, a measured risk is always taken. If this somehow backfired, calling this a ''wrong'' decision is fallacious because that would imply clairvoyance is presumed; Conversely, when all data and signs are ignored, thus a silly decision was made. Even if that worked out in the end that doesn't make the decision any less ill, as that's just literal dumb luck. For example, if two gamblers agree to roll a fair die, betting 1:1 where Gambler A wins on a 1, and Gambler B wins on a everything else, Gambler A is making an irrational decision to bet -- the outcome of the dice roll has no bearing on said irrationality. ''If it's stupid and it works, it's still stupid and you're lucky''

to:

* '''Decision-Making and Probability''': When a reasonable decision was made according to the odds, where the odds are calculatable, a measured risk is always taken. If this somehow backfired, calling this a ''wrong'' decision is fallacious because that would imply clairvoyance is presumed; Conversely, conversely, when all data and signs are ignored, thus a silly decision was made. Even if that worked out in the end that doesn't make the decision any less ill, as that's just literal dumb luck. For example, if two gamblers agree to roll a fair die, betting 1:1 where Gambler A wins on a 1, and Gambler B wins on a everything else, Gambler A is making an irrational decision to bet -- the outcome of the dice roll has no bearing on said irrationality. ''If it's stupid and it works, it's still stupid and you're lucky''
26th Oct '16 12:15:15 PM Kid
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* '''[[GamblersFallacy The Gambler's fallacy]]''': All probabilities should somehow "even out" while you're playing. For example, if the computer has a hit chance of 50%, and hits, that's okay. However, if it then scores another hit right away, TheComputerIsACheatingBastard. In truth, it just happened to be the way the "dice" fell. As is often stated, "dice have no memory." In situations where extreme good/bad luck streaks are undesirable, the Gambler fallacy can be invoked, chiefly in the form of pseudo-random distribution (or PRD). Under PRD, consistent misses will slowly increase the chance of a hit, and vice versa. Many video games uses this variant of "random" without being noticed, because, "pseudo-random" feels more random than real random. Note that there's a nugget of truth in the idea that odds should even out eventually, the operative word here being '''eventually''', this is known as the Central Limit Theorem.

to:

* '''[[GamblersFallacy The Gambler's fallacy]]''': All probabilities should somehow "even out" while you're playing. For example, if the computer has a hit chance of 50%, and hits, that's okay. However, if it then scores another hit right away, TheComputerIsACheatingBastard. In truth, it just happened to be the way the "dice" fell. As is often stated, "dice have no memory." In situations where extreme good/bad luck streaks are undesirable, the Gambler fallacy can be invoked, chiefly in the form of pseudo-random distribution (or PRD). Under PRD, consistent misses will slowly increase the chance of a hit, and vice versa. Many video games uses this variant of "random" without being noticed, because, because "pseudo-random" feels more random than real random. Note that there's a nugget of truth in the idea that odds should even out eventually, the operative word here being '''eventually''', '''eventually'''; this is known as the Central Limit Theorem.
6th Oct '16 2:00:10 PM Vilui
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Ask anyone who's played ''VideoGame/{{Civilization}} IV'' (''especially'' those who play mods like ''VideoGame/FallFromHeaven'') and they will tell you that any combat with less than 80% odds is suicidal and should be avoided at all costs [[note]]though this isn't purely for the chance weighting, as it affects how much your unit gets damaged; combined with the AI favoring large stacks of weak units, this means your unit will likely die next turn[[/note]], unless the odds are 1% or worse, in which case victory is surprisingly possible (see Spearman v. Tank).

to:

** Ask anyone who's played ''VideoGame/{{Civilization}} IV'' (''especially'' those who play mods like ''VideoGame/FallFromHeaven'') and they will tell you that any combat with less than 80% odds is suicidal and should be avoided at all costs [[note]]though this isn't purely for the costs. This sounds crazy, until you reflect that over many battles, an 80% winning chance weighting, as it affects how much your unit gets damaged; combined with the AI favoring large stacks of weak units, this means your unit will likely die next turn[[/note]], unless the odds are 1% or worse, losing one battle in five, which case victory (considering the high cost of replacing units) really is surprisingly possible (see Spearman v. Tank).a suicidal way to play.



** This is really a matter of game theory, not statistics. In general, you can't afford a policy of entering battles with an 80% chance of winning, because the cost to the player of losing each battle is so much greater than the benefit of winning.
24th Sep '16 12:46:28 AM Trueman001
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* [[http://jalopnik.com/hey-idiots-stop-saying-americans-won-t-buy-diesel-manu-1563050028 This]] Jalopnik article advocates bringing more diesels to the US market by showing how big of the VW Jetta sales chunk is diesels. This means next to nothing, since most Jetta buyers buy them for the TDI engine.

to:

* [[http://jalopnik.com/hey-idiots-stop-saying-americans-won-t-buy-diesel-manu-1563050028 This]] Jalopnik article advocates bringing more diesels to the US market by showing how big of the VW Jetta sales chunk cehunk is diesels. This means next to nothing, since most Jetta buyers buy them for the TDI engine.engine.
* A 2016 article claimed that 3% of men and 11% of women were abused as children; it was headlined "14% of adults suffered child abuse". But 3% of half the population plus 11% of the other half adds up to 7% of the total population, not 14%.
22nd Sep '16 4:26:07 AM jormis29
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''WorldEndEconomica'' has the protagonist, who is a little full of himself, apply the Gambler's Fallacy to trading on the stock market.

to:

* ''WorldEndEconomica'' ''VisualNovel/WorldEndEconomica'' has the protagonist, who is a little full of himself, apply the Gambler's Fallacy to trading on the stock market.
19th Aug '16 1:35:34 PM Ferot_Dreadnaught
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Creator/FoxNewsChannel's fondness for flashy graphics to engage the viewer's attention occasionally lends itself to a few mistakes. Such as [[http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/112009/fox_news_math_fail.jpg a pie chart where the total breakdowns add up to 193%]], or [[http://www.mathfail.com/scientists-poll.jpg this poll with a breakdown that adds up to 120%]]. Either with the pressure of the rush to get on-screen information ready by showtime, those responsible have little time to double-check their work; or [[TheyJustDidntCare they care more about making a quick impression on the viewer than ensuring accurate information]].[[note]]If the people polled can pick more than one option, poll results can easily add up to more than 100%. The first poll might be such a case, but a pie chart is a poor choice for showing that kind of data. The second poll suggests someone was stupid, whether the people who made the graphic, the people who calculated the numbers, or the people who voted for more than one mutually exclusive option.[[/note]]

to:

* The Creator/FoxNewsChannel's fondness for flashy graphics to engage the viewer's attention occasionally lends itself to a few mistakes. Such as [[http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/112009/fox_news_math_fail.jpg a pie chart where the total breakdowns add up to 193%]], or [[http://www.mathfail.com/scientists-poll.jpg this poll with a breakdown that adds up to 120%]]. Either with the pressure of the rush to get on-screen information ready by showtime, those responsible have little time to double-check their work; or [[TheyJustDidntCare they care more about making a quick impression on the viewer than ensuring accurate information]].information.[[note]]If the people polled can pick more than one option, poll results can easily add up to more than 100%. The first poll might be such a case, but a pie chart is a poor choice for showing that kind of data. The second poll suggests someone was stupid, whether the people who made the graphic, the people who calculated the numbers, or the people who voted for more than one mutually exclusive option.[[/note]]
9th Aug '16 2:15:47 PM Ripburger
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''[[{{VideoGame/XCOM}} X-COM]]:

to:

* ''[[{{VideoGame/XCOM}} X-COM]]:''{{VideoGame/XCOM}}'':
9th Aug '16 2:15:20 PM Ripburger
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''VideoGame/XCom'':
** ''{{X-COM}}'''s accuracy reports during combat aren't exactly blatant lies, but they're not exactly accurate, either. What ''X-COM'' does for a hit check is up to two rolls. The first is done against the accuracy check, and if it passes, you automatically get a dead-on shot. The other roll, if the first fails, is the deviation from where you're aiming, which may also end up being nil, resulting in a dead-on shot. So that 75% Accuracy the game reports? More like 77% to hit the target you're aiming at, and up to around 20% to hit someone else, resulting in somewhere around a 86% (on average) chance of someone getting hit by any given shot in a heated battle. Oh, and 100% accuracy reportedly doesn't exist.

to:

* ''VideoGame/XCom'':
''[[{{VideoGame/XCOM}} X-COM]]:
** ''{{X-COM}}'''s X-COM's accuracy reports during combat aren't exactly blatant lies, but they're not exactly accurate, either. What ''X-COM'' does for a hit check is up to two rolls. The first is done against the accuracy check, and if it passes, you automatically get a dead-on shot. The other roll, if the first fails, is the deviation from where you're aiming, which may also end up being nil, resulting in a dead-on shot. So that 75% Accuracy the game reports? More like 77% to hit the target you're aiming at, and up to around 20% to hit someone else, resulting in somewhere around a 86% (on average) chance of someone getting hit by any given shot in a heated battle. Oh, and 100% accuracy reportedly doesn't exist.
30th Jul '16 5:32:12 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* DaveBarry once joked that he always flew on the airline with the most recent crash, on the assumption that it wouldn't be "due" for another one.[[note]]This could have some validity if you assume that the airline with the most recent crash would be under the most scrutiny and thus have the most reason to tighten up their safety standards, but it's not valid for the reason he (jokingly) gives.[[/note]]
* MarkTwain's ''Life on the Mississippi'' contained the following proof of what you can do with statistics:

to:

* DaveBarry Creator/DaveBarry once joked that he always flew on the airline with the most recent crash, on the assumption that it wouldn't be "due" for another one.[[note]]This could have some validity if you assume that the airline with the most recent crash would be under the most scrutiny and thus have the most reason to tighten up their safety standards, but it's not valid for the reason he (jokingly) gives.[[/note]]
* MarkTwain's Creator/MarkTwain's ''Life on the Mississippi'' contained the following proof of what you can do with statistics:
This list shows the last 10 events of 197. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ArtisticLicenseStatistics