/vp/ - Pokémon » Thread #48746844

[64 / 7 / ?]

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:08:14 No.48746844 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>48746858 >>48746861 >>48746867 >>48746893 >>48746985 >>48747285 >>48748043 >>48748048 >>48748290 >>48748770

Hydro pump's accuracy is 80 it means if I use it 5 times it will fail 1 time?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:11:05 No.48746858 Report

Quoted By:

>>48746844
No, it means its accuracy is 80%

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:11:19 No.48746860 Report

Quoted By: >>48747054 >>48748025

retake your statistics class again

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:11:45 No.48746861 Report

Quoted By: >>48747054 >>48748772

>>48746844
Ladies and gentlemen, American education

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:12:15 No.48746866 Report

Quoted By:

statistics is nothing but semantics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:12:18 No.48746867 Report

Quoted By: >>48746880

>>48746844
>If I flip a coin twice will I always get heads?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO R (4).png, 65KiB, 1092x1037

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:15:27 No.48746880 Report

Quoted By: >>48746898 >>48747008

>>48746867
>tfw flip a coin to decide whether i fap to gay porn or straight porn
>first coin flip decides if i fap to gay porn or straight, so HH means i fap to gay gay porn, HT means i fap to lesbian, TH means i fap to femboys, TT means i fap to straight sex
>because of this, most of my coin flips end up with me statistically likely to fap to gay porn
how do i get out of this hell

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:17:39 No.48746893 Report

Quoted By: >>48746906

>>48746844
no you retard if you use hydro pump it will fail or success, so the overall chance is 50-50

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:18:40 No.48746898 Report

Quoted By:

>>48746880
just say you are gay, no one kink shames you

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:20:08 No.48746906 Report

Quoted By: >>48746911

>>48746893
does that mean it's 40% accurate then? why did they say it's 80

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:21:14 No.48746911 Report

Quoted By:

>>48746906
no it's 50%, so it's actually 20% accurate after that

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:32:07 No.48746962 Report

Quoted By:

tell me you are an american without telling american

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:37:46 No.48746985 Report

Quoted By: >>48747221 >>48747317

>>48746844
In the matrix it would be correct. 80% accuracy would mean it miss 1/5 times.
Irl it could work 6-7-8 times before missing. It could miss the first time. Or even miss 2 times in a row.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:39:34 No.48746995 Report

Quoted By:

>use hydro pump
>it misses 4/5 times
something is wrong with the RNG

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Capture.jpg, 68KiB, 830x609

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:42:15 No.48747002 Report

Quoted By: >>48747039 >>48747458

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:44:45 No.48747008 Report

Quoted By:

>>48746880
the coin flips should just decide who's top or bottom
First coin is top, second coin is bottom
H: man T:woman
HH gay porn cause man top and man bottom
HT straight porn, man top woman bottom
TH straight porn, but femdom, woman top man bottom
TT lesbian porn woman top woman bottom
this makes it more balanced

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Capture.jpg, 15KiB, 325x239

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:51:08 No.48747039 Report

Quoted By: >>48747458

>>48747002

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:52:09 No.48747044 Report

Quoted By: >>48747086

yes but only when the number of trials is big enough

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:53:50 No.48747054 Report

Quoted By: >>48747066

>>48746860
>>48746861
How is he wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 07:56:53 No.48747066 Report

Quoted By: >>48747119 >>48747584

>>48747054
rookie mistake with math, if he had said "I use it 1000 times it will fail 200 times" then it would had been true
the number of trials is just 5 means it's too low for statistics

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 08:00:09 No.48747086 Report

Quoted By: >>48747330

>>48747044
its the opposite, a smaller number of trials gives you better odds

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 08:08:18 No.48747119 Report

Quoted By: >>48748410

>>48747066
Thanks anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 08:22:51 No.48747185 Report

Quoted By: >>48747188 >>48747189

finally got the full top clear rotom strat to work with everyone dunking =D
felt absolutely nasty

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 08:23:53 No.48747188 Report

Quoted By:

>>48747185
Uhm

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 08:23:54 No.48747189 Report

Quoted By:

>>48747185
wrong thread xd it wont let me delet

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 08:36:47 No.48747221 Report

Quoted By: >>48747268

>>48746985
This.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 08:50:01 No.48747268 Report

Quoted By: >>48747279

>>48747221
what is matrix?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 08:53:07 No.48747279 Report

Quoted By: >>48747351

>>48747268
How far do you want to travel down this rabbit hole anon?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Untitled_Artwork.jpg, 247KiB, 2388x1668

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 08:55:08 No.48747285 Report

Quoted By: >>48747327 >>48747591

>>48746844
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:05:30 No.48747317 Report

Quoted By: >>48747344

>>48746985
>Irl it could work 6-7-8 times before missing
it could work indefinitely
and it could never work

theoretically

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:08:02 No.48747327 Report

Quoted By:

>>48747285
Gambler's Fallacy is not a fallacy. It's how the universe works

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:08:31 No.48747330 Report

Quoted By: >>48747343

>>48747086
Explain please, I want to laugh

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:11:32 No.48747343 Report

Quoted By: >>48747349

>>48747330
If you only do it once, 80% of the time you'll end up with a 100% hit rate

if you do it 100 times, the odds of a 100% hit rate are close to 0

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:11:56 No.48747344 Report

Quoted By: >>48747348

>>48747317
I guess but the probability would be ridiculous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:13:20 No.48747348 Report

Quoted By: >>48747360

>>48747344
in a game of roulette at the Monte Carlo Casino on August 18, 1913, when the ball fell in the same color 26 times in a row

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:13:21 No.48747349 Report

Quoted By: >>48747359

>>48747343
>If you only do it once, 80% of the time
I stopped there

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:13:27 No.48747351 Report

Quoted By:

>>48747279
none

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:14:51 No.48747359 Report

Quoted By: >>48747367

>>48747349
Your brain is too small to comprehend multiple people doing the experiment, one person doing the same experiment multiple times, or even multiple universes, got it

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:15:09 No.48747360 Report

Quoted By: >>48747364

>>48747348
1) 26 is not infinite.
2) It's so incredible that people still talk about it a century later.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:15:59 No.48747364 Report

Quoted By: >>48747380

>>48747360
>2) It's so incredible that people still talk about it a century later.
given infinite time, feats more incredible will be recorded, roulette is a young game

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:16:45 No.48747367 Report

Quoted By: >>48747382 >>48747387

>>48747359
What is the difference between multiple people doing the same experiment and one people doing the same experiment multiple times?
How would it change the results?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:18:40 No.48747380 Report

Quoted By:

>>48747364
Come on! Stop being disingenuous. I told you it was theoretically possible. But just higly improbable.
We agree, so please being a contrarian.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:18:58 No.48747382 Report

Quoted By: >>48747389

>>48747367
butterfly effect

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:19:40 No.48747387 Report

Quoted By: >>48747391

>>48747367
You were bitching about the grammar implications of "only doing it once, yet talking about 80% of the time", when it could easily mean:
- multiple people do the experiment (n=1), ~80% of them get a 100% hit rate
- one person does the experiment (n=1) multiple times (does not aggregate the results), ~80% of individual experiments get a 100% hit rate
- one person does the experiment (n=1), ~80% of the universes (real or theoretical) get a 100% hit rate

10/10 bait

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:20:54 No.48747389 Report

Quoted By: >>48747404 >>48747418

>>48747382
Wtf
I wonder why I'm still trying to have a real debate on /vp/.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:22:04 No.48747391 Report

Quoted By: >>48747410

>>48747387
If multiple people do an experiment.
It's not done only once.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:25:30 No.48747404 Report

Quoted By:

>>48747389
because when 1 person doing the same experience 1000 times, let's say it is rolling the dice, the dice can be worn out and the result will not be accurate
it can even break at 2nd try

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:26:56 No.48747410 Report

Quoted By:

>>48747391
Only doing it once as in each individual experiment is n=1, and resets the count or stops altogether

~80% of experiments get a 100% hit rate as in a meta-analysis of all the individual experiments

Not unlike what you can see from someone trying to see if there's a difference between people's first attempt at something (as opposed to nth attempts)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:28:36 No.48747418 Report

Quoted By:

>>48747389
because when 1 person does the same experience 1000 times, let's say it is rolling the dice, the dice can be worn out and the result will not be accurate
it can even break at 2nd try

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:41:35 No.48747458 Report

Quoted By: >>48747505

>>48747002
>>48747039
Why's the probability so low?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 09:58:13 No.48747505 Report

Quoted By:

>>48747458
it's just an emulation program to do the experience and record the result

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 10:22:45 No.48747584 Report

Quoted By: >>48748410

>>48747066
that's the dummest thing someone could say about math

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 10:25:18 No.48747591 Report

Quoted By:

>>48747285
this does not apply here

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 12:12:22 No.48748025 Report

Quoted By:

>>48746860
It’s not that he WILL fail once.
He’ll THEORETICALLY get 4 out of 5 hits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 12:17:16 No.48748043 Report

Quoted By:

>>48746844
No it means it will fail roughly 50% of the time, always at the most inopportune moment

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 12:18:15 No.48748048 Report

Quoted By:

>>48746844
No, it will fail three times out of five, unles the CPU uses it, in which case it will always hit.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO this is fine. everything's fine.png, 768KiB, 804x918

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 13:15:19 No.48748290 Report

Quoted By: >>48748514

>>48746844
I missed Air Slash 3x in a row the other when no accuracy debuffs or evasion buffs had occured. I don't even want to know the actual odds of that, but what it means in relation to your question is: No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 13:37:56 No.48748410 Report

Quoted By:

>>48747119
>>48747584
Reminds me of the time I had a culture of some cells, expected 70% of them to be in their main stage of life since it takes up 70% of their lifespan and it ended up being something like 45%

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 13:53:58 No.48748514 Report

Quoted By: >>48748644

>>48748290
0.0125% chance

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 14:13:38 No.48748644 Report

Quoted By:

>>48748514
That's abysmal, my guess was 1 in 1000 and I was still off by x8. Thanks for the math though, I get to see my horrendous luck much more solidified now

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2021021118261900-3C66B776DB1AA06 (...).jpg, 5KiB, 109x109

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 14:31:10 No.48748749 Report

Quoted By: >>48748759 >>48748772

Is this a dumb attempt at a screencap?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 14:33:02 No.48748759 Report

Quoted By:

>>48748749
yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 14:34:56 No.48748770 Report

Quoted By:

>>48746844
No, it means that each time you use it, it has an 80% chance of hitting and a 20% chance of missing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 14:35:08 No.48748772 Report

Quoted By:

>>48746861
The extreme irony of this is that you're too retarded to recognize this as obvious bait >>48748749

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches