No Theme Mafia - It's now Night Four - Submit moves.

[TheKillerNacho]

so who hit swag?

I'm guessing they're now a bad guy. Sigh.

[TheKillerNacho]

Just now, The Orca said:

Not in the least, its math. Play the odds. Dome is the kind of the intro and the intro shows baddies 

Math says that this game's odds are not affected by the previous game. That's litearlly the gambler's fallacy I linked. Please say you comprehend... please.

[TheKillerNacho]

for the record, if my conversations with dome hold any weight, i think there's a bad guy in the game now. the guy who killed swag.

[The Orca]

Just now, TheKillerNacho said:

Math says that this game's odds are not affected by the previous game. That's litearlly the gambler's fallacy I linked. Please say you comprehend... please.

The odds externally of a given game having a false win con can be applied directly and in this case we are looking at the odds of 2 of those in a row. Low probability. Worth playing those odds Nacho 

[TheKillerNacho]

Just now, The Orca said:

The odds externally of a given game having a false win con can be applied directly and in this case we are looking at the odds of 2 of those in a row. Low probability. Worth playing those odds Nacho 

its like you completely ignored everything I said, including the commonly quoted gambler's fallacy which most people easily understand and comprehend, for no reason whatsoever.

orca hates swag and would probably kill him.

[TheKillerNacho]

4 minutes ago, The Orca said:

The odds externally of a given game having a false win con can be applied directly and in this case we are looking at the odds of 2 of those in a row. Low probability. Worth playing those odds Nacho 

In short, if you want the math:

 If I said the chances were 25% for erroneous win conditions, it would make two in a row a mere 6.25% if looking externally. But given that we already know the previous game was a 25% "erroneus win condition game", the current game is still 25%.

This is math. Believing otherwise is gambler's fallacy. Please educate yourself before replying.

Thanks.

[Dome]

7 minutes ago, Pickle Rick said:

Nacho 

 

3 minutes ago, The Orca said:

The odds externally of a given game having a false win con can be applied directly and in this case we are looking at the odds of 2 of those in a row. Low probability. Worth playing those odds Nacho 

 

2 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

its like you completely ignored everything I said, including the commonly quoted gambler's fallacy which most people easily understand and comprehend, for no reason whatsoever.

orca hates swag and would probably kill him.

 

7 votes needed for a majority...

2 Nacho - Pickle, Orca

1 Orca - Nacho

[Pickle Rick]

Nacho: I can't defend against that argument, I'll just push a fake case against orca and see what happens, while completely ignoring my whole position on the game setup and no lynch

[TheKillerNacho]

Just now, Pickle Rick said:

Nacho: I can't defend against that argument, I'll just push a fake case against orca and see what happens, while completely ignoring my whole position on the game setup and no lynch

I literally defended against it completely, i can't undersatnd how neither of you brothers can understand simple math if you can't undesrtand what I wrote. Embarressing frankly.

[Pickle Rick]

Nacho: if you kill you become a bad guy so we have to no lynch 

Nacho: oh no I'm being pushed, lets kill orca so I can become a bad guy 

[The Orca]

Just now, TheKillerNacho said:

its like you completely ignored everything I said, including the commonly quoted gambler's fallacy which most people easily understand and comprehend, for no reason whatsoever.

orca hates swag and would probably kill him.

Its not a gamblers fallacy. You are ignoring logic and reason to pound home the game should be a no lynch to win but you were lynching someone until your final switch. Ignoring the opening post, how Dome uses opening posts, what is said in the opening posts, and then now saying there is a bad guy all off the basis of some cryptic convo you had with dome about a game setup that doesn't match what has been seen. You are doing what scum does

I didnt kill anyone nor can I 

[TheKillerNacho]

2 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

In short, if you want the math:

 If I said the chances were 25% for erroneous win conditions, it would make two in a row a mere 6.25% if looking externally. But given that we already know the previous game was a 25% "erroneus win condition game", the current game is still 25%.

This is math. Believing otherwise is gambler's fallacy. Please educate yourself before replying.

Thanks.

@The OrcaI have a coin. I flip it once, and it's heads. I then say, "Well , there's only a 25% chance that two heads in a row will occur, so if you wager $100 that the next flip will be tails, I'll give you $25 if it's heads. After all... 3 to 1, odds, right?

[The Orca]

3 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

In short, if you want the math:

 If I said the chances were 25% for erroneous win conditions, it would make two in a row a mere 6.25% if looking externally. But given that we already know the previous game was a 25% "erroneus win condition game", the current game is still 25%.

This is math. Believing otherwise is gambler's fallacy. Please educate yourself before replying.

Thanks.

No, we aren't looking at the odds of 1 game, we are looking at the odds of 2 in a row. Different concept. Also its like 0.02% for 1 game to have a fake win con. 2 in a row would be virtually 0 

[Pickle Rick]

1 minute ago, The Orca said:

I didnt kill anyone nor can I 

I can. 

@MD4L you looking fly with the new bling around your neck!

[TheKillerNacho]

Just now, The Orca said:

No, we aren't looking at the odds of 1 game, we are looking at the odds of 2 in a row. Different concept. Also its like 0.02% for 1 game to have a fake win con. 2 in a row would be virtually 0 

When you already know the result of the first outcome, the second outcome's chances remain unchanged

Jesus

I've tutored 5th graders back when i was a high schooler who understood this concept.