Yes. Nordique understands this, blahblah does not.
Quote:
The law of averages is a lay term used to express a belief that outcomes of a random event will "even out" within a small sample.
As invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects bad statistics or wishful thinking rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur.[1] Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence.[citation n
I am quite aware of what I am arguing. The reality is the "Law" is like most law's that govern us. Meaning rather poor.
Since I actually back up most of my data when discussing averages and these concepts, it is more than simple "wishful thinking" as quoted above.
When Nordique forms a coherent argument against what I am saying, I will give credence. Up until now, it's more of "Uh un".
The reality is with a large enough sample size if the odds are 50% that something will occur, after a while it will be statistically around 50%. It might be 50.8%, 49.7%. The larger the same, the closer it will be to 50% - without an outside influence. However, there will be peaks and valleys within that 50%. Those peaks may reach 100%. Those are the peaks in which I am talking about when saying that, eventually, those peaks will benefit us. Sooner or later, the majority of variables will move into our favor. For a time.
So what am I missing here? Is it that you don't agree? If so, with what?
__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
It's clear this board has run out of things to argue about.
Oh, don't be so cynical. I'm sure we can find many, many more things to argue about, given enough time and patience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee
No, it's usually to provoke them just enough to achieve maximum freakiness during the making up part.
If the two of us ever stop arguing, I'm running like hell.
Mutual nonaggression treaties are the way to go. Makes it much easier.
__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards
Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Viqsi and I have been under a mutually beneficial one for quite a while. Seems to have worked out great. Oh I guard my borders still, but it's more out of habit than anything else... Thus far she's been quite honorable.... :p
No, it's usually to provoke them just enough to achieve maximum freakiness during the making up part.
If the two of us ever stop arguing, I'm running like hell.
I tell ya what's been weird. You and I are rarely on totally opposite sides of a discussion. Thank you Scott Howson for bringing some variety to my life!
Viqsi and I have been under a mutually beneficial one for quite a while. Seems to have worked out great. Oh I guard my borders still, but it's more out of habit than anything else... Thus far she's been quite honorable.... :p
Yes, but this is me we're talking about. Barring the chance to specifically target opposing people, I'd resort to thinly-veiled shots at anyone who espouses said viewpoints.
Yes, but this is me we're talking about. Barring the chance to specifically target opposing people, I'd resort to thinly-veiled shots at anyone who espouses said viewpoints.
I'm sorry, are you implying something about my posting strategy?
