kgwgk

41 ms·

721.
by kgwgk 2y ago
When you win the lottery you win on average what lottery winners win on average when they win the lottery. One may find ways to define things differently so something is less than something else but I’m not sure what’s the point in doing so
722.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Taking the n=10 case, because you think n=2 is confusing. > the average winner will get prize_pool / (10/2) or prize_pool / 5. No, the average winner will get expected_prize_pool / expected_number_of_winners. If 5 is
723.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Not sure what’s your point bur the original claim was about a constant (or constant-enough) number of players. > I'm also assuming your individual ticket contribution doesn't materially affect either the prize pool or the numbe
724.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> This means that the average lottery winner will win prize_pool / (n/2). Does it? Take the case n=2. Run the lottery a few times and take all the winners. Half the winners win prize_pool. Half the winners win prize_pool/2
725.
by kgwgk 2y ago
I think my previous comment was wrong. Anyway, the point is that the original claim "if you win the lottery jackpot, then you win less than the average lottery winner" seems wrong unless the winnings of "the average lottery w
726.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> So it has all the same combination of winners, plus you. And the same is true when you condition on having at least one winner. One winner doesn't change the odds of other people winning. [edit: this may not be correct, never mind
727.
by kgwgk 2y ago
The "average lottery winner" also wins $4.5 though. (The original claim was that "if you win the lottery jackpot, then you win less than the average lottery winner".) If there are 100 draws with a $6 jackpot 25 will have
728.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Maybe pif's comment "The total number of expected winners (including you) is the same as the average number of winners" means "The total number of expected winners (including you) is the same as the average number of win
729.
by kgwgk 2y ago
The main problem with your argument is that the "average lottery winner" doesn't win JackpotPool/Average winners.
730.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Conditioned on you winning, there are 1+N expected winners. The number of winners is always larger than zero [edit: the following is not correct "and the average prize is calculated diving the jackpot by the 1+N expected winners"
731.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> Average Jackpot prize is JackpotPool/Average winners. > Average Jackpot prize given you win is JackpotPool/(1+Average winners). That doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe you mean that most winners get less than the aver
732.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> its lesson 'isn't really to tell us which viewpoint to take When the analysis is intended to inform a decision it’s important to take the appropriate viewpoint. https://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r
733.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Ok, women and men applying to a different mix of easy/hard departments - not so different from the two players batting against a different mix of easy/hard pitchers.
734.
by kgwgk 2y ago
There you have something like "The key to understanding the paradox is that the schools did not have the same set of applicants.” It seems similar.
735.
Imane Khelif and Western delusions of white innocence(aljazeera.com)
1 points by kgwgk 2y ago|0 comments
736.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> Ass-uming that's even the case.
737.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Having testicles is not really about "conforming to stereotypical, European standards of womanhood" - is more of a biologial feature distinguishing males from females except in the presence of rare development abnormalities. Of co
738.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Why? By his own account, by his family’s account, and coming from every remotely reliable source that could have any knowledge to the contrary, he was born as, raised as, lives as, and most importantly is a human. Anyway, this is the reason
739.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> This means that "total votes" number was worked backwards by a third party. Any school child can "work backwards" that if the vote counts are X for Maduro, Y for Gonzalez and Z for others the total number of votes c
740.
by kgwgk 2y ago
https://x.com/yvangil/status/1817787106237743565
741.
Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election(statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu)
903 points by kgwgk 2y ago|470 comments
742.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Also hard to interpret correctly frequentist results. -- Misinterpretations of P-values and statistical tests persists among researchers and professionals working with statistics and epidemiology "Correct inferences to both questions,
743.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Note that Bayesian methods also have analytical solutions in some settings. There is a reason why conjugate priors were a thing.
744.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> If it is not a proposition, what does it actually mean? It's a measure of plausibility - enabling plausible reasoning. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KN3BYDkWei9ADXnBy/e-t-jaynes... https://e
745.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> So my primary beef with Bayesian statistics (...) is that it can very easily be misused by non-statisticians and beginners Unlike frequentist statistics? :-)
746.
by kgwgk 2y ago
How so? There are thousands of Herr and Fräulein Hilbert in Germany. Apparently it's more frequent there than anywhere else.
747.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> So the case I mentioned, where you know all the positions and momentums has 0 shannon entropy No, Shannon entropy is not applicable in that case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(statistical_thermodyn... Qua
748.
by kgwgk 2y ago
>>> Particles have a defined position and momentum [...] If you somehow learned these then the shannon entropy is zero. >> Entropy in classical statistical mechanics is proportional to the logarithm of the volume in phase spa
749.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> possible microstates Conditional on the known macrostate. Because we don’t know the precise microstate - only which microstates are possible. If your reasoning is that « experimental entropy can be measured so it’s not about that » the
750.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> Particles have a defined position and momentum Which we don’t know precisely. Entropy is about not knowing. > If you somehow learned these then the shannon entropy is zero. Minus infinity. Entropy in classical statistical mechanics

More ›