You're contradicting yourself there
Halk says the odds are 1:240, so it cant be 1:58000 for all outcomes as well.
Journalism? Statistics? Nonsense...
- Thread starter The Halk
- Start date
You're contradicting yourself there
Halk says the odds are 1:240, so it cant be 1:58000 for all outcomes as well.
You're contradicting yourself there
Halk says the odds are 1:240, so it cant be 1:58000 for all outcomes as well.
The difference is whether the outcome is pre-defined.
I dont understand what you mean. Can you explain a bit more?
There is a 1/6 probability of "event A", an annual event, occurring.
Event A occurred last year. What are the chances of event A occurring this year? = 1/6
But, what was the probability of event A occurring both years in a row? = 1/36.
News article is correct. The odds of him being elected both years in a row should be the value squared. But the odds of him being elected this year, independently, is the original value.
Event A occurred last year. What are the chances of event A occurring this year? = 1/6
But, what was the probability of event A occurring both years in a row? = 1/36.
News article is correct. The odds of him being elected both years in a row should be the value squared. But the odds of him being elected this year, independently, is the original value.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
The news article is only correct if you want to know the odds specifically of John Mcdonald winning twice in a row (having said that we're assuming 240 people entered last time as well but it doesn't actually state that) but that is misleading because the news story is really saying "look, the same guy has won twice in a row isn't that amazing" and the odds of anyone winning twice in a row is 1 in 240.
Unless you believe that if it had been someone else that did it, it wouldn't be newsworthy then the figure is misleading.
Last edited:
Well I guess that's the point of the news article - "wow, the guy won twice in a row!". If you'd bet on it a couple of years ago, those would be your odds.
But yeh, the odds for him 'winning again' wouldn't be as headline grabbing
.You're contradicting yourself there
Halk says the odds are 1:240, so it cant be 1:58000 for all outcomes as well.
not a contradiction at all. Halk is saying the story doesnt match the odds. I agree.
throw one dice twice - what are the odds of getting 6 then 6? What are the odds of getting 1 THEN 2? you answer one you answer the other.
The headline is saying 'amazing! one in 58000!'. But no matter who won the first, and who won the second, the probability of that is ALSO 1 in 58000. So the story isn't about that. It's about 'wow, the same guy won twice in a row'.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You are confused, yes the chances of getting specifically two 6's is 1 in 36, but the chances of getting two 1's OR two 2's OR two 3's OR two 4's OR two 5's OR two 6's is 1 in 6.
The chances of SOMEONE winning the Private Member's Bill ballot twice in a row is 1 in 240. You can only use the 58k figure if BEFORE the first ballot you asked "what are the chances that John McDonald will win this ballot AND the next one".
Let me break it down for you, the chances that someone would win the first ballot was 1/1 or 100%. The chances that same person would then win the next one is then 1 in 240 (or 239 to 1 which ever you prefer). Thus the odds of ANYONE winning twice in a row is 239 to 1.
Halk did make a mistake in his OP though...
No the odds are 1 IN 240, or 239 TO 1. So he still needs to go back to school
Last edited:
You are confused,
lol
yes the chances of getting specifically two 6's is 1 in 36, but the chances of getting two 1's OR two 2's OR two 3's OR two 4's OR two 5's OR two 6's is 1 in 6.
I know
The chances of SOMEONE winning the Private Member's Bill ballot twice in a row is 1 in 240. You can only use the 58k figure if BEFORE the first ballot you asked "what are the chances that John McDonald will win this ballot AND the next one".
I know
Let me break it down for you,
no need
the chances that someone would win the first ballot was 1/1 or 100%. The chances that same person would then win the next one is then 1 in 240 (or 239 to 1 which ever you prefer). Thus the odds of ANYONE winning twice in a row is 239 to 1.
I know
Halk did make a mistake in his OP though...
No the odds are 1 IN 240, or 239 TO 1. So he still needs to go back to school
err, so why am I confused?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Because the way this sentence scans seems like you are saying the chances of anyone winning twice in a row is 1 in 58k when it is 239 to 1....
I'm guessing that's not what you meant and after reading it back several times I now get what you are trying to say but you din't put it very well that's all.
I think what you meant was the odds that any single person backing themselves to win twice in a row before the first ballot would be 1 in 58k for each individual. That is different to saying the odds of anyone winning twice in a row is 1 in 58k which is how I read that sentence of yours..
But I maintain, if the story is about "Wow the same guy won twice in a row" then the better figure to use would be 239 to 1. Only if the story is "Wow we wanted McDonald to win and he won twice in a row" would the 58k figure be useful. As I said before had someone else won twice in a row they would have still printed the story, this isn't about McDonald specifically winning twice in a row it's that someone won twice in a row.
Last edited:
Oh dear.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Why oh dear strife? He is right in that quote (he aint in the next one though but he is correct in what you quoted).
The odds of rolling ANY number twice is 5 to 1 (1 in 6), the chances of rolling a specific predefined number twice is 35 to 1 (1 in 36) so he is right.
The odds of rolling ANY number twice is 5 to 1 (1 in 6), the chances of rolling a specific predefined number twice is 35 to 1 (1 in 36) so he is right.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Well yes, he was wrong to say the odds were 240 to 1 because that isn't right (it is 239 to 1) but he was on the right lines.
It's just a shame he followed the "240 to 1" error up with that sarcastic sentence (if I were him I'd have edited the OP by now!)
It's just a shame he followed the "240 to 1" error up with that sarcastic sentence (if I were him I'd have edited the OP by now!)
I disagree. That's not the way we are used to seeing stats.
Imagine a story in a local paper about somebody who has won the lottery.
It wont say they have beaten odds of 1:2*, it will say they won against 1:13,983,816
(they give the odds for the specific individual, rather than general odds for anybody to win)
*odds estimated based on number of ticket sales and guess of overlapping tickets.
I'm trying to say the chances of any pairing is 1 in 58k
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
Is it a random draw?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Any named pairing ispecifically yes, a pairing no.
Like I said, you just need to word it better. Don't worry we're on the same page now so no point debating sentence structure.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
That isn't the same thing though.