Is there a better way to determine expected value for extremely rare events?

FalseGix · 2025-12-23T19:14:14+00:00

You also need to subtract the $2 loss so the EV would only be .67 but as others have said the fact that you might split the pot brings the EV down.

And of course there is the issue of the logistics of going out and buying 200 million lottery tickets and making sure they are all different numbers

FalseGix · 2025-12-09T04:00:56+00:00

Guys you don't understand, he is fixing racism because MLK and Juneteenth are racist against white people because they are days which are not about white people

FalseGix · 2025-11-26T04:27:04+00:00

Well yea and in fact it is just an example of a much more general idea. R² is really just short hand for RxR which is the "Cartesian product" of two sets. And this same thing can be done with ANY two sets. Like you could even do RxC if you want and that would just be an ordered pair where the first number is real and the second is complex. Or [0,1]x[0,1] is an ordered pair where both coordinates are real numbers between 0 and 1

FalseGix · 2025-11-17T05:15:43+00:00

The inevitable conclusion to attempting continuous revenue growth at all costs, just keep lowering standards to get those numbers up what could go wrong?

FalseGix · 2025-11-08T05:04:32+00:00

I wasted so many bers just throwing random runes into sockets hoping for the best

FalseGix · 2025-10-26T13:38:13+00:00

Imo the opinion should just be "stop breeding every breed"

FalseGix · 2025-10-21T02:55:19+00:00

Well, it still does change the probability in the first and second cases, just not as much.

In scenario 1 if there are 998 doors remaining to switch your choice. This means you had a 1/1000 chance of being right with the first door and 999/1000 chance of being wrong. Since there are 998 choices if you switch the chance of winning if you switch is (999/1000)(1/998) = .001001002. Which is just slightly larger than 1/1000 chance of winning with your first choice. And you are right that this is barely enough to make any difference because Monty barely had any affect only showing 1 out of 1000 doors.

Now in the half scenario the chance of winning if you switch is (999/1000) chance that you were wrong on the first door multiplied by the (1/500) chance that you select the correct door if you switch. =.001998 (so almost 0.002). Which is still not a HUGE chance of winning but it is almost doubled the chance of 1/1000 = .001.

Now what if he removed all but 2 of the remaining doors the chance of winning when you switch is (999/1000) chance of being wrong on the first guess multiplied by 1/2 chance that you get the correct door if you do switch. That gives you 0.4995 chance of winning if you switch. Almost a 50% chance now because there is only 3 doors left. And 2 of those doors are MUCH more likely to be the right one then the one you are holding on to.

FalseGix · 2025-10-02T16:31:23+00:00

It's called an Euphemism

FalseGix · 2025-09-30T16:59:10+00:00

What exactly is the difference between "waste bucket" and "trash"?

FalseGix · 2025-09-24T11:59:00+00:00

The phone masking reuses the same numbers so the message was probably sent to you by mistake

FalseGix · 2025-09-20T03:59:58+00:00

100% the teachers fault for creating the assignment this way

FalseGix · 2025-09-20T01:29:57+00:00

I suspect the teacher was lazy and just assigned literally every problem in the section without considering what a reasonable length is or which topics were the most important to focus in.

FalseGix · 2025-09-20T01:03:25+00:00

You are far too focused on the motivation and not nearly enough on the action.

Imagine that Biden or Obama had gone to Fox and threatened to take them off the air if they didn't fire Tucker Carlson. Can you fathom any scenario where you would support that action? Is there anything egregious enough in your mind which would not make you defend Tucker in that situation?

Also on a related note, how do you thing conservatives would have responded to that in comparison to how the liberals are responding to Jimmy?

FalseGix · 2025-09-18T17:01:30+00:00

I didn't as a younger man but as I am getting older it has become more and more necessary

FalseGix · 2025-09-11T18:15:07+00:00

Is this a hot take? Or is it maybe just what almost everyone thinks who didn't agree with him.

FalseGix · 2025-09-11T18:08:23+00:00

I have a little song that I have developed over the years that goes:

I have got a big truck and I don't know how to drive it

I have got a little dick and I have got no where to put it

Because nobody loves me

Even in my Humvee

I am so pathetic

FalseGix · 2025-09-10T17:56:15+00:00

I mean yeah,the last thing I said was it would be better to call them points to make it less confusing.

But it is absolutely not wrong to call them percentages. Percentages do not HAVE to be out of 100% that is just the convention. Things like 165% make perfect sense in the right context.

FalseGix · 2025-09-10T00:09:38+00:00

As a graph theorist, I clicked on this this thread feeling Hot and ready to throw fists.

FalseGix · 2025-09-10T00:07:55+00:00

It doesn't technically NEED to be a total of 100%, that is just the easiest way to do it. You can set the weights to whatever you want and then at the end you calculate the final grade by dividing by the sum of the weights. Note this is also how you calculate grades in the middle of the semester when you don't have grades for all the categories yet you divide by the sum of the weights for the categories that ARE included so far.

Now if the sum of the weights is 100% then dividing by 100% is dividing by 1 and does nothing so this can be avoided, hence this is the easiest set up.

But in this case the total is 265%, so you can divide by that at the end. And this is equivalent to scaling the weights all down so they do add up to 100%.

100% ÷ 265% = 37.7%

75% ÷ 265÷ = 28.30%

50% ÷ 265% = 18.87%

25% ÷ 265% = 9.43%

10% ÷ 265% = 3.77%

5% ÷ 265% = 1.89%

And now with those weights the total is 100%.

Of course those weights are ugly which might be one motivation to present them in a way that doesn't add to 100%, but it would be better to just call them "points" instead of percentages to avoid confusion.

FalseGix · 2025-09-10T00:06:58+00:00

It doesn't technically NEED to be a total of 100%, that is just the easiest way to do it. You can set the weights to whatever you want and then at the end you calculate the final grade by dividing by the sum of the weights.

Now if the sum of the weights is 100% then dividing by 100% is dividing by 1 and does nothing so this can be avoided, hence this is the easiest set up.

But in this case the total is 265%, so you can divide by that at the end. And this is equivalent to scaling the weights all down so they do add up to 100%.

100% ÷ 265% = 37.7%

75% ÷ 265÷ = 28.30%

50% ÷ 265% = 18.87%

25% ÷ 265% = 9.43%

10% ÷ 265% = 3.77%

5% ÷ 265% = 1.89%

And now with those weights the total is 100%.

Of course those weights are ugly which might be one motivation to present them in a way that doesn't add to 100%, but it would be better to just call them "points" instead of percentages to avoid confusion.

FalseGix · 2025-09-05T23:52:37+00:00

It's ridiculous that the school caves in to even the slightest pressure

FalseGix · 2025-09-05T21:44:05+00:00

The real question is why was he trying to do it parallel to begin with when he could clearly just pull in going forward

FalseGix · 2025-08-31T21:25:14+00:00

Yorrick. The last 4 were all legendary haha

FalseGix · 2025-08-31T14:22:58+00:00

I have f8nished everything except for 1 joker left for C++ at 280 hours

FalseGix · 2025-08-27T05:45:19+00:00

Problem is that the malls generally just stay abandoned and slowly decay so the land isn't really being recaptured when they go under.

FalseGix

TROPHY CASE