On Apr 9, 2:05 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > WOAH let's stop right there. > > > Haven't I repeatedly told you that my paranormal bias is approx. a > > CONSTANT +50% over the expected score. > > > e.g. HALF RIGHT FROM 3 OPTIONS > > > 1.5/50 from 50 options. > > You've made a *lot* of claims, many not consistent with others. You > had been claiming that you could regularly guess a number from 1 to > 100, or do the equivalent. IIRC, you claimed you could do this > successfully more than half the time. Later you said you could do it > with two guesses per number, and also talked about guessing a number 1 > to 50, which is equivalent.
I'VE TOLD YOU 20 TIMES THAT IS NOT MY CLAIM AND NOWHERE NEAR MY CLAIM.
50 OPTIONS IS DIFFICULT, BUT I COULD DO IT IF I HAD TO, BUT IT WOULD TAKE MUCH MUCH LONGER!
YOU KEEP TAKING THE
H Y P O T H E T I C A L
TEST PROTOCOL I USED TO QUIZ PETER ABOUT 'NO GUESSES' AND 'NO MULTI GUESSES'.
TRY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS SIMPLE POINT.
A 'LONG SHOT' TEST HAS LOWER CONSISTENCY.
IT CAN STILL PROVE A HIGH ODDS BIAS.
*BUT* IT WOULD TAKE 10000 TRIALS AT 100:1 PER TRIAL JUST TO SEE IF *ANYONE* WAS INSIDE NORMAL RANGE.
HIGH ODDS / HIGH OPTIONS TRIALS ARE IMPRACTICAL!
REMEMBER THE HELICOPTER ANALOGY
YOU CAN'T JUST PUSH THE THROTTLE UP TO MAXIMUM, THERE ARE OTHER VARIABLES THAT IT AFFECTS LIKE THE TAIL ROTOR SPEED.
IF MY CLAIM IS 2/5 THEN YOU CANNOT JUST SAY MAKE IT 200/500
WHY CANNOT YOU SEE THAT INCREASING ODDS PER TRIAL *I N C R E A S E S* THE NUMBER OF TRIALS NEEDED!