4 ms·
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I'm replying anyway. If there's a sudden gust of wind, say, there's a possibility you might draw a different tile t
by ronaldx 13y ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I'm replying anyway.
If there's a sudden gust of wind, say, there's a possibility you might draw a different tile than you would have otherwise. But, this wouldn't make individual tiles any more or less likely. As long as we can agree that wind has a purely random effect, it does not need to be part of the probability model.
Putting tiles into the bag and redrawing them may, however, result in particular patterns. For example, it would be reasonable to believe that LIFO has some influence: last in, first out. This would depend on the individuals involved in shuffling and drawing the tiles, but some patterns common to human players could be identified with some study.
I would suggest that word combinations could be more likely to appear than the given random model predicts (and non-word combinations less likely), as the groups of tiles may hang over from previous games.
- swayvil 13y agoWell, what I'm saying that your model, while useful, will be unrealistic if it does not take into account the billion other variables in play. Some words weigh more (in ink). The meaning of words bear upon the mood of the wordpicker, influencing his hand. Etc. And that this is the case with models in general. (And your reply reflects the attitude of modelers, in general). Call it humor.
- llamataboot 13y ago"All models are wrong...but some are useful"
- ronaldx 13y agoAnd your reply reflects the attitude of someone who hasn't fully understood probability. Best wishes ;)