|
Disclaimer:
+ Show Spoiler +The law of averages is actually not a law at all. It's a truism that has no truth stating that when you've flipped a coin and gotten heads three times in a row, well then tails is more likely to turn up on your next flip. I just think that "The Law of Large Numbers" is a horrible title.
Any personal injury you sustain as a result of things such as but not exclusively slaps from angry girls through the use of your newfound knowledge is not to be blamed on me. If you succeed in any of your endeavors however, it is.
The law of averages states that the more times you try something, the more likely your chance of success is. This seems like common sense but most people don't employ it in their everyday lives.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hS8Cd.png) graphs make everything better...
chicken chicken
To better see how the law of averages can be applied take this real life example:
I recently found a job because I kept applying to different jobs. It doesn't really matter if you fail to get the job twenty, even thirty times in a row, as long as you keep trying to apply, and don't get discouraged by expected failures, you will eventually find a job.
Now what's even better is that the law of averages can be applied to everything!: women, starcraft, sales, etc...
If you go to a party, you can go hit on every single girl and eventually you'll get lucky enough to find one girl either drunk or horny enough.
You can generally improve your chances by using the law of averages selectively.
nsfw
+ Show Spoiler [girl at party] +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lEZqj.jpg) Depending on your goals, this can be a good sign
Note that I haven't actually tried the law of averages out on women.
When you apply the law of averages, you don't want to sacrifice quality for quantity. You don't want to go up to every girl at the party and start grinding up against her on the dance floor. You'll make whomever you go after next feel like sloppy seconds. When you're applying for jobs, you don't want to send in a nonchalant cover letter either.
Even if a business is desperate for work, they won't hire someone who greets them with "sup boss dude."
+ Show Spoiler +
The point of using the law of averages is not to sabotage your own efforts by working really hard on applying to only one job, or expecting to gain ranks in starcraft 2 through analyzing vods all day. You want to combine quantity with quality for maximum effectiveness, and utilizing the law of averages is the best way to do it.
  
|
i loled at "sup boss dude"
|
This is how my brother and I used to get women (when we were a tad younger). We would go to a club and hit on the hottest girl in the room (in a non weird way... just ask if they wanted a drink or something), slowly working our way down in hotness (yes im aware this is a very immature and disrespectful thing to do lol)...... all our friends would spend the whole night working up the courage to speak to one girl and me and my bro would already be on our way out the door! They could never figure out how we did it, and we never told them!
|
Well i guess its true, if a monkey types randomly on a keyboard for a very long time, eventually the monkey will write Shakespeare.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
This thread doesn't make any sense to me.
The law of large numbers is about how the average of many independent repeatable experiments will tend to its expected value. Your example about getting a job after applying to 30 different companies is simple math of taking the limit of the CDF of the geometric distribution as the # of trials approach infinity. Of course your chances are quite high if you apply to a ton of jobs. But if you tell yourself that you're bound to find a job because you've been rejected by 30 companies is naive because the geometric distribution is memoryless.
I guess you're just happy that you found a job but you should be aware of what you're telling people.
|
On May 21 2011 04:52 obesechicken13 wrote:
The law of averages states that the more times you try something, the more likely your chance of success is.
if you are defining success as rolling a 6, this isnt true. if you are defining success as managing to roll the dice at all, well, congratulations. success and failure type experiments dont work like this.
rephrase please <3
|
Funny read, also an interesting juxtaposition of a classy vodka and .. not so classy partiers 
|
On May 21 2011 06:16 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 04:52 obesechicken13 wrote:
The law of averages states that the more times you try something, the more likely your chance of success is.
if you are defining success as rolling a 6, this isnt true. if you are defining success as managing to roll the dice at all, well, congratulations. success and failure type experiments dont work like this. rephrase please <3
Dude... Read the OP again. If success is rolling a 6, the more times you roll a die, the higher the chance you get a 6. That's basic statistics. Roll 1 die one time,you have 1/6th chances. Roll 1 die two times. You get 1/6th chances of success at A, 1/6th chances of success at B, probability that either event occurs equals .306, which is quite a bit higher than 1/6. Cheers.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On May 21 2011 06:57 Sleight wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 06:16 turdburgler wrote:On May 21 2011 04:52 obesechicken13 wrote:
The law of averages states that the more times you try something, the more likely your chance of success is.
if you are defining success as rolling a 6, this isnt true. if you are defining success as managing to roll the dice at all, well, congratulations. success and failure type experiments dont work like this. rephrase please <3 Dude... Read the OP again. If success is rolling a 6, the more times you roll a die, the higher the chance you get a 6. That's basic statistics. Roll 1 die one time,you have 1/6th chances. Roll 1 die two times. You get 1/6th chances of success at A, 1/6th chances of success at B, probability that either event occurs equals .306, which is quite a bit higher than 1/6. Cheers.
Chance of success in rolling a die typically refers to the chances of 1 independent event. And the law of large numbers has nothing to do with either of those, it's basic probability.
What the OP probably meant was that as the number of trials increase, the chances of seeing one 'success' increases.
|
On May 21 2011 07:14 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 06:57 Sleight wrote:On May 21 2011 06:16 turdburgler wrote:On May 21 2011 04:52 obesechicken13 wrote:
The law of averages states that the more times you try something, the more likely your chance of success is.
if you are defining success as rolling a 6, this isnt true. if you are defining success as managing to roll the dice at all, well, congratulations. success and failure type experiments dont work like this. rephrase please <3 Dude... Read the OP again. If success is rolling a 6, the more times you roll a die, the higher the chance you get a 6. That's basic statistics. Roll 1 die one time,you have 1/6th chances. Roll 1 die two times. You get 1/6th chances of success at A, 1/6th chances of success at B, probability that either event occurs equals .306, which is quite a bit higher than 1/6. Cheers. Chance of success in rolling a die typically refers to the chances of 1 independent event. And the law of large numbers has nothing to do with either of those, it's basic probability. What the OP probably meant was that as the number of trials increase, the chances of seeing one 'success' increases.
So if 6 is success and 54 times in a row you've gotten 1-5 and because the law of large numbers says everything will even out to the 1/6 eventually, you have a higher chance of getting a six the more you roll. I'm not actually familiar with the law, this is what I'm inferring
|
On May 21 2011 06:57 Sleight wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 06:16 turdburgler wrote:On May 21 2011 04:52 obesechicken13 wrote:
The law of averages states that the more times you try something, the more likely your chance of success is.
if you are defining success as rolling a 6, this isnt true. if you are defining success as managing to roll the dice at all, well, congratulations. success and failure type experiments dont work like this. rephrase please <3 Dude... Read the OP again. If success is rolling a 6, the more times you roll a die, the higher the chance you get a 6. That's basic statistics. Roll 1 die one time,you have 1/6th chances. Roll 1 die two times. You get 1/6th chances of success at A, 1/6th chances of success at B, probability that either event occurs equals .306, which is quite a bit higher than 1/6. Cheers.
Probability is a tricky thing. If you roll a dice your probability of getting a 6 is 1/6. The next time you roll the probability is the same! This is because the events are uncorrelated. When events are uncorrelated you actually don't increase your probability for success the next time you try. So if you rolled a dice hoping for a 6 say 100 times and didn't get it then this hasn't increased your chances the next time you try (but that you didn't roll a 6 with 100 tries is a very seldom event and one has to be very unlucky!). But your strategy is still the correct one since you have no chance if you don't try - same is true for girls.
Anyhow funny post.
|
While this method may help you develop the courage to talk to attractive women, I merely see it as just that, a method of motivation. While you may think that on average the more times you roll a dice, the more likely you are to get a six, all these events are independent of one another. While you do put simple probability on your side, that does not mean that it will actually work. You could be the unlucky guy to get struck down by every women you ask out. You could roll a dice 100 times and never get a 6, sometimes life is just tough.
EDIT: I liked the chicken chicken reference.
|
So let me check that I get this. Obviously each separate event in unrelated to the one before it but we know that the event has some finite chance of success and, if performed an infinite number of times, the success/failure rate will be whatever our finite chance is (probably why this is called the law of large numbers). So when we performed multiple trials with more failures than success we know that sometime in our infinite tests we'll have to get more success than usual to regress to the mean and thus our chance is higher even if the events have no impact on one another. Which is actually really intuitive and applicable but sounds paradoxical.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On May 21 2011 07:23 n.DieJokes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 07:14 infinity21 wrote:On May 21 2011 06:57 Sleight wrote:On May 21 2011 06:16 turdburgler wrote:On May 21 2011 04:52 obesechicken13 wrote:
The law of averages states that the more times you try something, the more likely your chance of success is.
if you are defining success as rolling a 6, this isnt true. if you are defining success as managing to roll the dice at all, well, congratulations. success and failure type experiments dont work like this. rephrase please <3 Dude... Read the OP again. If success is rolling a 6, the more times you roll a die, the higher the chance you get a 6. That's basic statistics. Roll 1 die one time,you have 1/6th chances. Roll 1 die two times. You get 1/6th chances of success at A, 1/6th chances of success at B, probability that either event occurs equals .306, which is quite a bit higher than 1/6. Cheers. Chance of success in rolling a die typically refers to the chances of 1 independent event. And the law of large numbers has nothing to do with either of those, it's basic probability. What the OP probably meant was that as the number of trials increase, the chances of seeing one 'success' increases. So if 6 is success and 54 times in a row you've gotten 1-5 and because the law of large numbers says everything will even out to the 1/6 eventually, you have a higher chance of getting a six the more you roll. I'm not actually familiar with the law, this is what I'm inferring
No, that's the popular misconception. What it really means is, even if you roll no sixes for your first 6 rolls, if you roll the dice 6000 times, you will see approximately 1000 6s because the chances of it diverging significantly from 1000 is very low.
Basically, having a bad start is insignificant when it comes to large # of trials as those few odd results will get dwarfed by the rest of the instances.
|
On May 21 2011 07:35 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 07:23 n.DieJokes wrote:On May 21 2011 07:14 infinity21 wrote:On May 21 2011 06:57 Sleight wrote:On May 21 2011 06:16 turdburgler wrote:On May 21 2011 04:52 obesechicken13 wrote:
The law of averages states that the more times you try something, the more likely your chance of success is.
if you are defining success as rolling a 6, this isnt true. if you are defining success as managing to roll the dice at all, well, congratulations. success and failure type experiments dont work like this. rephrase please <3 Dude... Read the OP again. If success is rolling a 6, the more times you roll a die, the higher the chance you get a 6. That's basic statistics. Roll 1 die one time,you have 1/6th chances. Roll 1 die two times. You get 1/6th chances of success at A, 1/6th chances of success at B, probability that either event occurs equals .306, which is quite a bit higher than 1/6. Cheers. Chance of success in rolling a die typically refers to the chances of 1 independent event. And the law of large numbers has nothing to do with either of those, it's basic probability. What the OP probably meant was that as the number of trials increase, the chances of seeing one 'success' increases. So if 6 is success and 54 times in a row you've gotten 1-5 and because the law of large numbers says everything will even out to the 1/6 eventually, you have a higher chance of getting a six the more you roll. I'm not actually familiar with the law, this is what I'm inferring No, that's the popular misconception. What it really means is, even if you roll no sixes for your first 6 rolls, if you roll the dice 6000 times, you will see approximately 1000 6s because the chances of it diverging significantly from 1000 is very low.
Isn't that what I said? If you don't get any 6's for some significantly large period and if you roll 1000 6's in 6000 you have to roll more 6's after the dry spell and thus have a slightly higher chance of success
|
Hopefully people don't confuse this with gambler's fallacy.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On May 21 2011 07:32 n.DieJokes wrote:
So let me check that I get this. Obviously each separate event in unrelated to the one before it but we know that the event has some finite chance of success and, if performed an infinite number of times, the success/failure rate will be whatever our finite chance is (probably why this is called the law of large numbers). So when we performed multiple trials with more failures than success we know that sometime in our infinite tests we'll have to get more success than usual to regress to the mean and thus our chance is higher even if the events have no impact on one another. Which is actually really intuitive and applicable but sounds paradoxical.
No the chances of you rolling a 6 doesn't change based on previous results. That's why the events are called independent. By definition of independence, what happened in the past cannot influence the probability of your throw.
Here's some light reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On May 21 2011 07:38 n.DieJokes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 07:35 infinity21 wrote:On May 21 2011 07:23 n.DieJokes wrote:On May 21 2011 07:14 infinity21 wrote:On May 21 2011 06:57 Sleight wrote:On May 21 2011 06:16 turdburgler wrote:On May 21 2011 04:52 obesechicken13 wrote:
The law of averages states that the more times you try something, the more likely your chance of success is.
if you are defining success as rolling a 6, this isnt true. if you are defining success as managing to roll the dice at all, well, congratulations. success and failure type experiments dont work like this. rephrase please <3 Dude... Read the OP again. If success is rolling a 6, the more times you roll a die, the higher the chance you get a 6. That's basic statistics. Roll 1 die one time,you have 1/6th chances. Roll 1 die two times. You get 1/6th chances of success at A, 1/6th chances of success at B, probability that either event occurs equals .306, which is quite a bit higher than 1/6. Cheers. Chance of success in rolling a die typically refers to the chances of 1 independent event. And the law of large numbers has nothing to do with either of those, it's basic probability. What the OP probably meant was that as the number of trials increase, the chances of seeing one 'success' increases. So if 6 is success and 54 times in a row you've gotten 1-5 and because the law of large numbers says everything will even out to the 1/6 eventually, you have a higher chance of getting a six the more you roll. I'm not actually familiar with the law, this is what I'm inferring No, that's the popular misconception. What it really means is, even if you roll no sixes for your first 6 rolls, if you roll the dice 6000 times, you will see approximately 1000 6s because the chances of it diverging significantly from 1000 is very low. Isn't that what I said? If you don't get any 6's for some significantly large period and if you roll 1000 6's in 6000 you have to roll more 6's after the dry spell and thus have a slightly higher chance of success
In my example, the expected value would be 999, which is basically going to be the same as having an expected value of 1000. So this seemingly significant event of not rolling a single 6 for 6 or even 12 throws is not significant over a sample of 6000 throws.
|
On May 21 2011 07:44 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 07:38 n.DieJokes wrote:On May 21 2011 07:35 infinity21 wrote:On May 21 2011 07:23 n.DieJokes wrote:On May 21 2011 07:14 infinity21 wrote:On May 21 2011 06:57 Sleight wrote:On May 21 2011 06:16 turdburgler wrote:On May 21 2011 04:52 obesechicken13 wrote:
The law of averages states that the more times you try something, the more likely your chance of success is.
if you are defining success as rolling a 6, this isnt true. if you are defining success as managing to roll the dice at all, well, congratulations. success and failure type experiments dont work like this. rephrase please <3 Dude... Read the OP again. If success is rolling a 6, the more times you roll a die, the higher the chance you get a 6. That's basic statistics. Roll 1 die one time,you have 1/6th chances. Roll 1 die two times. You get 1/6th chances of success at A, 1/6th chances of success at B, probability that either event occurs equals .306, which is quite a bit higher than 1/6. Cheers. Chance of success in rolling a die typically refers to the chances of 1 independent event. And the law of large numbers has nothing to do with either of those, it's basic probability. What the OP probably meant was that as the number of trials increase, the chances of seeing one 'success' increases. So if 6 is success and 54 times in a row you've gotten 1-5 and because the law of large numbers says everything will even out to the 1/6 eventually, you have a higher chance of getting a six the more you roll. I'm not actually familiar with the law, this is what I'm inferring No, that's the popular misconception. What it really means is, even if you roll no sixes for your first 6 rolls, if you roll the dice 6000 times, you will see approximately 1000 6s because the chances of it diverging significantly from 1000 is very low. Isn't that what I said? If you don't get any 6's for some significantly large period and if you roll 1000 6's in 6000 you have to roll more 6's after the dry spell and thus have a slightly higher chance of success In my example, the expected value would be 999, which is basically going to be the same as having an expected value of 1000. So this seemingly significant event of not rolling a single 6 for 6 or even 12 throws is not significant over a sample of 6000 throws.
lol kk. Then what is this blog saying?
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
It's saying to never give up and keep working towards your goal because you'll eventually reach it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nEcOf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cz47t.jpg)
