/biz/ - Business & Finance

is it 50%?

>>12001142
you're telling me some people on 4channel posted something incorrect?

>>12001142
25%

25%

>>12001162
50%

>>12001142
Lmao I went on /sci/ for the first time in years and this exact thread was up

>>12001154
its fiddy. at least one is a crit already from the statement. so thats a 100% chance of hitting crit. so the other hit has a 50% chance of getting a hit.

>>12001177
lmao

>>12001142
150%

>>12001142

So, if at least one of the hits is a crit, it's guaranteed that one of the hits will be a crit. This means there is a 100% chance of 1 crit. The chance of both being crits is 1 * .5. Thus, the answer is 50%.

>>12001162
>>12001167
>>12001175
>>12001154
>>12001180
>>12001183

Retards

>>12001142
Honestly it's more likely cause you asked people at a (great if people got it instantly?) college. Ask the average boomer and they'll get it wrong

33%

>>12001142
.
/ \
C* N
/ \ / \
C* N C N
It's 25% by calculation.
Some may argue it's always 50% to happen in reality.
The question is retarded

>>12001197
Wait if one of them is already critical then it's not 25%

>>12001197
aw shit it is 25%

>>12001142
You might as well just say "You flipped a coin and it came up heads. You flip it a second time, what's the probability it comes up heads?"

>>12001185
Go on then you prick

75%

>>12001225
No no. Its the probability of getting heads twice in a row.
25%

Pr(a given b) = Pr (a & b) / pr (b)

Pr(a) = 0.5
pr(b) = 1

Pr(a given b) = (0.5 x 1) /1
= 50%

>>12001226
It's a third, it's a very famous problem and at least in the UK you get taught it at 17. (Although I got it first time)

75%

50% insta-crit + 50% chance of crit on the remaining hit.

0% I just suck at hitting

>>12001240
So there are 3 possible scenarios

Crit+ Crit

Hit + Crit

Crit+ Hit

therefore 1/3

>>12001239
Isn't it the probability of getting two heads in a row "when at least one is guaranteed to be heads"?

that's completely different from getting two heads in a row when both coins have a 50% chance to be either-or.

>>12001251
can I change my answer to this? also what coins do you hold?

>>12001188
Congrats

>>12001259
50% for 2 hits not per

>>12001260
Got it right first time at 17 years ago.

About 10 bitcoin and equal amounts of all the bitcoin forks

And you stupid fucks try to tell me how to invest my money...
For two hits we have 4 different combinations of crit (C) and noncrit (N) :
CC
CN
NC
NN

OP told us that at least one of them (but NOT whether it's the first or second hit) is a C. That's why NN is ruled out by definition. Of the remaining 3 only one has 2 crits, that's why the probability is 1/3 or 33%

>>12001273
cheers for the swift response.

>>12001246
Damn, didn't know the UK was that retarded. Sorry for your loss

>>12001225
correct answer, 33%ers are mid level iq

>>12001299
and what do you currently hold?

>>12001308
Link

https://brilliant.org/wiki/bayes-theorem/

Basic conditional probability - 50%

Actually no, 2/3

>>12001225
But in that scenario, if you flipped a coin and it came up Tails, that means there is a 0% chance for the next coin to be a Tails since at least one must be Heads; that isn't consistent with the problem presented in this thread since we're looking for a specific side of the coin and not a match of either-or.

>>12001197
Nah man. The question is “at least one of them is a crit” so you remove the N,N branch. You’re only left with 3 possibilities. Leaving you with 1/3 a chance.

THIS IS THE ONLY ANSWER

POSSIBLE SCENARIOS:
>MM
>HM
>MH
>HH

The first choice is not possible as at least one is a hit. THEREFORE, HH occurs in 1/3 total possiblities. The answer is 33%. If you came up with ANY other answer, you are a brainlet and you will NEVER make it unless you go all in on BAT before ads go live at the end of the month

>>12001328
wow took this long for the right answer.

no one here did discrete math?

>>12001142
50% no way anybody here gets it wrong.

>>12001204
>what is a statistical distribution and what is each random outcome

>>12001274
This is fucking dumb. You know why?

Because for someone to know that at least one of the hits is a crit, then that means someone has to have seen either the first hit, the second hit, or both.

If he saw only the first one, the probability for the second to be also a crit is 50%.
If he saw only the second one, the probability for the first to be also a crit is 50%.
If he saw both hits, then either he saw one crit or two crits. If he saw one crit, then the probability for the other to be a crit is 0%. If he saw two crits, then the probability for the other to be a crit is 100%. So if he saw both hits, there is 50% probability that there are two crits.

So the overall probability that both hits are crits is (1/3)*(1/2)+(1/3)*(1/2)+(1/3)*(1/2) = 1/2 = 50%

>>12001274
This is correct

>>12001362
If crit chance is 50% and you are guaranteed one of the two hits to be a crit (assuming hits are successful) shouldn't it be like (100%+50%)/2=75%. Sure if you take the scenarios at face value it seems to be 1/3 but isn't the order irrelevant?

>t. brainlet
please explain

>>12001188
Holy shit thank you

>>12001393
What if it both hits were simultaneous? Does his answer suddenly become correct? That seems silly, his answer is correct either way.

>>12001403
I did say that earlier >>12001248 but no one refuted me. Then again I'm a fence sitting brainlet too >>12001260

Possibly even NPC tier.

>>12001416
yeah wanted to give you a (you) but your using 50% twice seemed like wrong phrasing tbqh.

>>12001403
no you brainlet
By your logic, when rolling 2 dice, rolling a 3 is just as likely as rolling a 2. Rolling a 1,2 pair is NOT the same as rolling a 2,1 pair.

In laymen terms, its not 50% because you have 2 chances of hitting that 50% crit. You cant take 1 guaranteed hit at face value, as by getting that 50% crit you may use your first hit (as a miss). This is why its less than 50%

Adding 100% + 50% /2 just makes no sense at all lmao I see the flawed logic for thinking its 50% but not 75%.

If I reworded the question but to non-crits your answer would still be 75% based on that math. So regardless of what you hit first, your calculation would argue that both hitting a crit, and hitting a non-crit would have a 75% chance. That makes no sense

>>12001393
this.

The question is worded in a way that has multiple interpretations. "At least one hit is a crit", if you changed the phrase to "one of these hits is already a crit" then the answer changes. This is based on an English technicality and is designed to teach kids about figuring all possible outcomes. But if you took the sentence at absolute value instead of like an autist: 50% due to being able to discount the first crit. This isn't a question of intelligence, it's more of an English trivia than a math problem

I don’t think theoretical logic and mathematical logic line up here fellas

>>12001142
33%

>>12001432
if you rephrased it to the opposite i.e. "at least one is a normal hit, what are the chances of both being normal hits" then yes it would be 75% again.
If you rephrased it to "at least one is a crit, what are the chances of the other being a normal hit" then it's 50% because that's the crit chance. There is no "both" factor in the latter case.

by my logic any specific dice pair has a 1/36 chance of being rolled and the order is irrelevant. But I dunno, the closest I ve been to probabilities/statistics the past 6 years has been playing dnd.

>>12001251
this sadly

>>12001142
It's 50%.

One of the two hits is already definitely a crit according to the premise, so basically the question is "Assuming a 50% crit chance, what is the chance one hit will be crit?". And that's 50% because the premise just told us.

>>12001393
Incorrect. You could create an array hitcrit =[ ] , then using 1 for crit and 0 for noncrit with index 0 for hit 1 and index 2 for hit 2, write to the array. Return a value for hitcrit[0] or hitcrit[1] using a random number generator without knowing which index is called

How do you double down on that first point? You are saying in both instances their is a 75% chance of the same result occuring. That is just clearly impossible.
Also, I like that you say 1/36 chance, yes there aren't 36 possibliities by your logic:
>1,1
>1,2
>1,3
>1,4
>1,5
>1,6
>2,2
>2,3
>2,4
>2,5
>2,6
>3,3
>3,4
>3,5
>3,6
>4,4
>4,5
>4,6
>5,5
>5,6
>6,6
Notice there are 21 pairs if order is irrelevant. 36 comes from the fact that reversing the order for every pair, excluding doubles (21 - 6 = 15 pairs to reverse), is every possibility.

Also here is proof its 1/3 and for all the other brainlets in here
>>12001607
>>12001393
>>12001385
>>12001320

>>12001616
You have to completely disregard that first crit hit from the premise you douche.
Regardless of how many crit or non-crits you had before, if you have a 50% chance of crit, then you have a 50% of crit.

Like flipping a coin, every single time you flip it, the chances are ALWAYS 50/50. Regardless of how it flipped the million times before that.

>>12001628
>disregard the first crit
why? no one said it had to be the first. Explicitly point out how that script conflicts with the OP. OP does not specify which hit is the crit. It is either the first or the second. This is what I tested.

>>12001635
>why?
Because every single time you go for a hit, the chances of it being crit are 50%.
Previous hits do not count.

Like flipping a coin, it's always always always 50/50.
Even if you just had 5 heads in a row, the chances of the next flip being heads are 50%.

>>12001251
the outcome of hit+crit is the same as crit+hit. shit question imho. but yeah thats the thing with catch question like these i guess

It's a one third chance of both being critical hits

>>12001643
>shit question imho
It's a bait question in a way.
It's testing whether you are aware of a very basic concept in probability.

>>12001644
No.

One hit is already crit according to the premise, so it all comes down to that one hit which has a 50% crit chance according to the premise.
So it's 50%.

>>12001654
Is this bait or do you really not understand? Not trying to be a dick.

>>12001671
Lmao, please tell me how I'm wrong.
This oughtta be good.

>>12001641
>>12001654
I know past results do impact current ones. Everyone older than 10 understands this. You are just fucking stupid lmao

Where in the posted script do I conflict with OP's post? Answer this question explicitly or kill yourself

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/991060/flip-two-coins-if-at-least-one-is-heads-what-is-the-probability-of-both-being?rq=1

If you don't answer where the posted script conflict with op its confirmed b8

>>12001686
>I know past results do impact current ones

>>12001686
> I know past results do impact current ones.
> You are just fucking stupid lmao

>>12001691
>>12001701
you got me there

>>12001675
There are three scenarios. Model them using binary. 1 is a crit, 0 is not.
>1 0
>0 1
>1 1
You are guaranteed that either 1 0 or 0 1 will be an outcome.
If the first hit is 1, then there's a 50% chance that the second hit will also be 1. That's where you are confusing it as being a 50% chance.
However, if the first hit is 0, then the second hit is guaranteed to be 1. This is what you're not thinking about. There's no telling which will be the first hit, because the first hit isn't guaranteed to be a crit, so the odds cannot be 50%. It's one third.

>>12001686
>I know past results do impact current ones.
Not how probability works.

You flip a coin five times, by some miracle it's 5 times heads.
What are the odds of the next coin flip being heads again?
50%

According to the premise in OP, we're talking about two hits:
> hit number (1) is pre-established as being crit
> hit number (2) has a 50% chance of being crit
(hit numbers are not necessarily chronological)

With me so far?

Now the question is "what are the odds of both being crit?"

There are only TWO possible scenarios:
(I dare you, double dare you, triple dog dare you to add another viable scenario)

1) hit number (2) is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) hit number (2) is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

These are the ONLY two scenarios that could ever play out according to the premise, and they both have equal odds of happening.
Therefore: the odds of both being crit are 50%.

Pr(a given c) = Pr (a / b) / tn (b)

Pp(a) = 0.5
pr(b) = 1
ps(c) = 2

Pr(a * b) = (0.5 x 1) /2
= 74.29999%

>>12001720
yeah it was an obvious typo. Didn't point out in the script as I expected. Confirmed retard or b8.

>>12001710
>There are three scenarios. Model them using binary. 1 is a crit, 0 is not.
>>1 0
>>0 1
>>1 1

Two of these scenarios are the same outcome.
Whether 1-0 or 0-1, that just means they are not both crit.

The question is "what is the probability both hits are crits".

This reduces your three scenarios to two scenarios:

1) both are crit (one possible arrangement: 1-1)
2) both are NOT crit (two possible arrangements: 0-1 or 1-0)

>>12001188
Yesse

>>12001725
Literally second answer in your link proves you are retarded. You're not smart, fuck off.

>>12001737
>0 1
>1 0
are not the same outcome.
>0 1
is guaranteed to produce a single crit.
>1 0
has a chance to produce a double crit.
You're a brainlet.

>>12001725
>yeah it was an obvious typo
What was?

>>12001740
You are retarded and that explanation is retarded.

Let me boil it down for you:

According to me, these are the ONLY two scenarios that are possible under the premise:

1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

Please add another viable scenario to this. If you can, that means I was wrong and you were right.

>>12001756
Did you even read it, you fucktard?

>>12001747
>>0 1
>is guaranteed to produce a single crit.
If it's 0-1 that just means the unknown hit came up non-crit. Which has a 50-50 probability.

The question is "what are the odds both are crit". And under this premise, 0-1 and 1-0 are the exact same outcome: namely "both are NOT crit".

Jeeeeesus christ my dude.

>>12001765
Absolutely.

Now please add another scenario to these two that is viable under OP's premise:

1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

If you can, you are wright and I was rong.

(protip: you cannot. Because those are the only two viable scenarios under OP's premise)

>>12001740
read the answer and check your reading comprehension. The only way to interpret the question given by OP is to assume either or, which is what the selected SE answer does. This answer also states the answer of 1/3 in this instance. In the case that a particular instance is chosen, then yes the dynamic is changed. However, there is no reason to assume such unless explicitly stated.

Once again, you can refer to the very simple python script I posted that meets the criteria of OP's post and results in 1/3 chance.

Now I quit talking. If anyone still insists its 1/2 you are just fucking retarded. Anyone with a math background would give you an answer of 1/3, unless you imply some extra circumstance like >>12001740 does

>>12001780
>If anyone still insists its 1/2 you are just fucking retarded.

Please add another scenario to these two that is viable under OP's premise:

1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

If you can, you are right and I will openly admit to being retarded.

(protip: you cannot. Because those are the only two viable scenarios under OP's premise)

Known Hit Crit - Unknown Hit No Crit
Known Hit Crit - Unknown Hit Crit
Unknown Hit Crit - Known Hit Crit
Unknown Hit Crit - Known Hit No Crit

50 %

>>12001142
Scenarios
AT LEAST one hit is a crit
So we have 3 scenarios
Attack 1 = Crit, Attack 2 = Crit
Attack 1 =Crit, Attack 2 = Non-crit
Attack 1 = Non-crit, Attack 2 = Crit
33% for scenario 1 to occur

>>12001794
In order for it to be 33% you have to add one more viable outcome scenario to these two:

1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

Please add the third outcome scenario.

>>12001788
there are 2 hits. the result of either in particular is not known. OP never states a particular hit is given. therefore there are 2 unknowns, with the potential tuple being constrained to a set domain (1,0),(0,1),(1,1). End case.

I have now asked three anons to add a third scenario to my two scenarios.

Surely one of them will come through for daddy.

>>12001776

Nice troll.

Cases where at least 1 is critical
First critical, second not : 1/2*1/2
First not critical, second critical : 1/2*1/2
Both are critical : 1/2*1/2
.: P( at least 1 is critical) = 3/4

P(Both are critical | at least 1 is critical)
= P(Both are critical) / P (at least 1 is critical)
= (1/2*1/2) / (1/2*1/2+1/2*1/2+1/2*1/2)
=(1/4)/(3/4)
=1/3

>>12001802
1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit
3) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

Eazy.

>>12001776
I'm not sure you did. In real world, the probability that both are crits is 50%, yet math will prove 1/3. So where's the disconnect? The question is retarded, just like you and >>12001780 are for not seeing this

>>12001616
you are right about the dice. mb.
that said, removing the 25% chance of 2 normal hits, we re left with 50/75 for no doubles or 25/75 for a double crit i.e. 1/3.
>til order is relevant.

cheers for the thread.

>>12001805
I didn't see you add another scenario.

>>12001808
Please try to add another scenario. It's a very fair and objective question.

>>12001816
read this you brainlets have none of you studied basic conditional probability.

Either first hit is a crit, or second hit is a crit, or both hits are crits, so 33% of the time when there is at least one crit, both hits are crits.

BUT

If you have seen the first hit and it's a crit, there is 50% chance both hits are crits.
If you have seen the second hit and it's a crit, there is 50% chance both hits are crits.

The answer depends on how you know that there is at least one crit. If you or someone else has seen one hit and it was a crit, there is 50% chance both hits are crits.

>>12001827
>Please try to add another scenario. It's a very fair and objective question.

>>12001817

Eazy.

>>12001817
>50% chance
>50% chance
>50% chance

I get it, you're joking.

>>12001818
>math will prove 1/3
Oh good, in that case you won't have any trouble adding a third possible scenario to these two:

1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

Please go ahead.

>>12001769
>repeating the same retarded reasoning ad nauseum
There's three outcomes.
>both are crit
>first is crit, second is not
>first is not, second is crit
Go build something you autistic fuck

Lets say X is the known 100% Crit and Y the unknown 50% Crit and Z is our 50 % no Crit

Our Possible outcomes are

XY
XZ
YX
YZ

we have 2/4 for both being Crit
50%

>>12001835
Stop.

>>12001827
i put down 3 possibilities 0,1 != 1,0

>>12001816
In order for it to be 1/3rd you have to add one more viable outcome scenario to these two:

1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

Please add the third outcome scenario.

>>12001142
25% right? I don't know how I got there, am retarded.

>>12001845
Should have included first question so it's less confusing.

>>12001802
just because you repeat your failure doesn't make it to be correct.
no crits for you.

>>12001840
>>first is crit, second is not
>>first is not, second is crit
Both of these are the exact same: NOT crit.

The question is "what are the odds both are crit".

The only thing that matters is "both are crit VS both are not crit".

>>12001180
Oh I get it.

>>12001853
this

>>12001387
If we knew would we be ITT?

>>12001855
So add the third scenario.

>>12001846
The question is "what are the odds of both being crit".
Whether "1-0" or "0-1", they are both not crit.

>>12001835
>Oh good, in that case you won't have any trouble adding a third possible scenario to these two:
>1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
>2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit
>Please go ahead.

1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit
3) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

>>12001869
yeah it can be 1,0 0,1 or 1,1 with 1,1 being the right answer. 3 scenarios, one that is both crit. Now reply to me that this is only 2 scenarios

>>12001857
If both of these were the same then the question "What are the chances that two coinflips produce two heads" would have an answer of 33%, because of the possible outcomes HH, TH=HT, TT which is obviously false.
There are like 15 posts in this thread explaining step for step why 1/3 is the solution to OP's problem, stop trolling.

>>12001870
kek

>>12001869
>18 posts by this ID
100% chance you're an extreme faggot who's blowing off steam between jacking off to trapz

>>12001848
>1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
>2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit
>3) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit
3) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

>>12001870
>>12001881
The last two are the exact same you brainlet: "both are not crit".

The answer has to be either "both are crit" or "both are not crit".

>>12001873
The answer has to be either "both are crit" or "both are not crit".

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

>>12001889

1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit
3) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

There is your answer, duuuuuuude.

Answer is either 33% or 50% depending on how you interpret the meaning of the question.

/thread

>>12001889
no it doesn't
your autism wins im going ot bed have fun in your retardation

>>12001896
nah, you can only interpret it as the second version of the boy/girl paradox so it's 1/3. sure semantics are important and if op's image specified that "the first hit is a guaranteed crit" then it would be 50%. but it's 1/3 because order matters as established above.

>>12001889
>The answer has to be either "both are crit" or "both are not crit".

You either win the lottery or not thus you have 50% chance to win it.

Better start buying those tickets mate!

>>12001910
Except you only get one flip of the coin in this scenario.

And that coin has a 50/50 chance of being heads.

>>12001895
>>12001899
>>12001881
>>12001870
>>12001855
>>12001845
You're assuming you get more than one shot at this scenario.

You only get one shot at making two hits, and one of them is guaranteed to be crit, whether it's the first or the second.

That leaves only one shot at making a crit, and the odds of that are 50%.

Critical hit means 1 hit kill?
If so 0% chance

>>12001916
>Except you only get one flip of the coin in this scenario.

You're flipping it two times dawg.

Better start buying those lottery tickets.

>>12001909
Doesn't have to be the first hit, if either hit is seen and it's a crit then there is 50% chance the other is a crit too. Saying "at least one of the hits is a crit" is ambiguous, the intuitive thing to do with such a wording is to imagine seeing one hit and seeing it to be a crit.

A non-ambiguous wording would be to say, in the instances where either the first hit is a crit, or the second hit is a crit, or both hits are crits, what percentage of the time both hits are crits? But then we wouldn't get such a long thread.

>>12001953
>You're flipping it two times dawg.
Not really.
The first "flip" is guaranteed to be crit.

>>12001928

1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit
3) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

>>12001961
There is only one event.

In that event, one of the two hits is guaranteed to be a crit, and it does not matter if it's the first or the second.
It could even be that the two hits are given at the same time if you're dual wielding.

Stop arguing, Dunning-Kruger brainlets. If the probability of the outcomes is absolute, the answer is 1/2. If conditional, it's 1/3 (you can try this on a random number generator).

>>12001958
I'm not going to argue with you, but if this isn't bait and you are still so sure you are right, you unironically, unironically, as serious as I can say this, have some sort of mental condition. You need to be willing to take in new ideas and information dude. You are clearly blatantly wrong, both from this thread and just taking the time to look up the many pieces on this exact problem, both in literature and forums. Learn to take in new ideas and use your brain man, this is just sad. That, or really good bait. Anyway, think about it

>>12001142
i don't give a shit, richer then you faggot

C = crit
N = non-crit

Either CN, NC, or CC (at least one of the hits is a crit) -> 1/3

But if you see one and it's a C, second is either N or C (at least one of the hits is a crit) -> 1/2

Problem can be interpreted either way

>>12002021
Yeah this makes sense when you put it that way.
I just didn't know what to do with the information C>=1, and was left with 25% chance from the NN.

>>12002014
Imagine being such an arrogant cunt and still wrong at the same time. Embarrassing.

>>12001958
>The first "flip" is guaranteed to be crit.

Where does it say that? Can you point it out for me?

>There is only one event.

You flip the coin two times dawg.

>>12001740
>>12002014
You're dual wielding swords. You hear a special audio effect when there is a crit. You do a double hit and hear the effect. So now you know that at least one was crit.
There's your example.

>>12001978
>>12002041
>agree with me
>call me arrogant and wrong
Embarrassing.

>>12002060
>Where does it say that? Can you point it out for me?
By "first" I mean the first hit scenario that's guaranteed to be crit.

>You flip the coin two times dawg.
One event where you land two hits.

>>12001142
you fucking morons. The answer is 100% because I hit crits 100% of the time and assuming that it's a 50% crit chance only makes an ass out of u and me

Literally all the answers on the thread are wrong because it depends if someone sees it or not. Reality is biased against us.
Double slit and shieeeet.

if one probability is a crit crit, then wouldnt one of the hit crit be a crit crit aswell given one is always guaranteed. So would the answer not be 2/3?

>>12002079
>By "first" I mean the first hit scenario that's guaranteed to be crit.

But we aren't talking about only that scenario. It's entirely possible the first hit doesn't crit.

>One event where you land two hits.

And two events here you land one crit.

>>12001853
it was a paradox the whole time.

it's ok lads the real retards are the ones arguing over 50 or 33. the true master race was on the fence and knew something was wrong.

>>12002060
If the probability is absolute, you roll only once, because the other hit is always going to be critical, thus 1/2. If conditional, you roll again if you score a crit, thus 1/3.
>>12002079
I wasn't replying to you in either of the posts. Is it autism?

>>12002112

There is nothing in the question that would make you believe the probability is absolute.

>>12002123
There is nothing that would make you believe otherwise, which is why it's a retarded question in the first place.

>>12002112
>I wasn't replying to you in either of the posts.
You weren't replying to me because you're embarrassed that I'm right.

>>12002125
>There is nothing that would make you believe otherwise

If it's not stated to be absolute it's conditional as default.

>>12001142
This thread gukin kek

>>12002131
I am embarrassed, but it's second hand embarrassment.
>>12002132
Support your claim.

>>12002131
1) the unknown hit is crit (50% chance of this) = both are crit
2) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit
3) the unknown hit is NOT crit (also 50% chance of this) = both are NOT crit

I enjoy how this turned from a simple math question to retards arguing semantics. All of you neckbeards are correct because you will go above and beyond to twist the question to prove why it is that your answer is the correct one. I made this post while dropping the biggest shit all week btw.

>>12001142
the answer depends on if you reason each instance individually or as a series that must look a certain way.

for example take a falling deck of cards. each card always has 1/52 chance to be a specific card. but if they are part of a series and must be a specific card at a specific position then the chance is much less (unless it's the first card).

so the answer is always 50% if you reevaluate the probability after each hit, or 25% if you calculate the probability of the series of hits before you begin (where 2 of the possible 8 hit combinations are desirable).

>>12001142
Just tested. Not 33.333repeating
It’s 50%.
Crit and Crit
or
Crit and Hit
Thus 50%
Hit and Hit is literally impossible because it is already established one is a crit.
It’s just asking what the probability of a 50% is.
It’s not asking how many probabilities there are. If it is then it’s a retarded question and purposefully misleading and doesn’t even have an exact answer it has a vague answer which can be interpreted multiple ways depending whether you take the information given as a question of probability or the meta probability.

>>12002139
You can’t have both being regular hits, that’s not established.

>>12002138
>Support your claim.

Because being absolute would require stating more conditions, such as knowing that the first roll isn't the "guaranteed crit". Leaving it open will at least make assuming it as conditional more strongly supported option.

>>12002163

I'm just playing that guys special Olympics.

>>12002165
>Because being absolute would require stating more conditions
That's another unsubstantiated claim.
Also >>12002061

>>12002151

or Hit and Crit

>>12002149
whoops, i missed the part about one of the hits always being a crit. this reduces the available combinations from 8 to 6

so the answer is always 50% if you reevaluate the probability after each hit, or 33.333% if you calculate the probability of the series of hits before you begin (where 2 of the possible 6 hit combinations are desirable).

>>12002104
>>12002014
>>12001961
>>12002139
BTFO
See pic.

You're the one landing the hits, you will have first-hand knowledge of the events as they unfold.

>>12002138
>I am embarrassed, but it's second hand embarrassment.
Only if you refer to yourself in the third person.

>>12001928
That’s true because it’s sequential. Via one being a crit. It doesn’t matter if it’s first or second that is arbitrary despite it changing the answer because in practice there is only one hit in question and that is sequential not in a way pertaining to time but in regards to whether it is the certain crit hit itself, which it isn’t, hence why it is a probability.

>>12002178

Thanks for stating more conditions that would make the question absolute. I'm not talking about your example though, just the question in the OP.

>>12002180
That’s not an option. You aren’t given the luxury of deciding what comes first.
It’s either crit and hit or crit and hit. Hit and crit is just crit and hit said differently, but this doesn’t change the percentage in practice of hit being instead crit.
Crit = A, Hit = B
B and A, A and B, that’s the same mathematically.

>>12002181
also this is the gambler's fallacy btw, to mistake themselves of being part of a series. like for example if they win a coin flip if it lands on tails. just because it landed on heads the previous time it doesn't mean they now have a 25% chance of it landing on tails. it's always 50%. only before or after all coin tosses can you consider the probability of the whole series.

>>12002189

But the one landing the hits isn't the one who has first-hand knowledge of the events : )

The system, aka 3rd party, is the one with the first hand knowledge thus it's 1/3

>>12002222
>But the one landing the hits isn't the one who has first-hand knowledge of the events : )
If he's blindfolded, no.

lol

>>12002213
>You aren’t given the luxury of deciding what comes first.

Thus you can't decide that the first one is going to be the guaranteed crit. The system decides which is the cheat crit and which is organic.

>>12002224
>If he's blindfolded, no.

Or if he's playing a game, no.

lol

What happens when the first one doesn't crit after all?

>>12002247
>Or if he's playing a game, no.
Haha what?

>What happens when the first one doesn't crit after all?
That just means your non-guaranteed crit hit came up non-crit.
Which it had a 50% chance of doing.

Pot odds are 2:1 translates into 1/3 = 33%

>>12002260

So in this case you can no longer double crit.

Now we get back to you claiming that there is 50% chance of winning the lottery because you either win or don't win.

>>12001142
the same probability as both hits are uncritical

sicne 1 hit doesnt relay on the previous hit the chance for a 2nc crucial hit could be anywhere between 0 and 100%

this is a dumb question, just like asking i fuck a cute girl twice- 1 time she gets pregnant, what is the probabilty both fucks get ehr pregnant 0% cause you got her pregnant on the 2nd fuck

>>12002288
>So in this case you can no longer double crit.
Absolutely.

>Now we get back to you claiming that there is 50% chance of winning the lottery because you either win or don't win.
Why?

>>12002315

Because you just admitted that there are three possibilities:

first crits, second crits
first hits, second crits
first crits, second hits

Yet you still say you either crit both or don't so it's fifty-fifty. You can use the exact same dumb logic to say you either win the lottery or don't so it's fifty-fifty.

You see, for every both crit you have two where the other doesn't crit.

>>12001142
The answer is objectively "not enough information"

>>12002352
Whether the guaranteed crit comes first or second, the non-guaranteed crit has a 50% chance of critting.

The guaranteed crit is going to crit no matter what, so you have to disregard it because it has no influence on the 50/50 crit at all.
Just like the million previous coin flips have no influence on the next coin flip: it's always 50/50.

See >>12002189

>>12002376
go to bed, clean your room, go do something productive with your time. do you get am adrenaline rush out of arguing with people online? fucking pathetic, try sex or somethin instead to alleviate stress

>>12002401
Don't get mad.
See >>12002189

>>12001142
This is a stupid nonsensical question. You would either ask beforehand, in which case you don't know if any of the hits will be crits, in between the hits or afterwards when you already know the answer. I don't get in which timeframe the question is supposed to be asked.

>>12002376
That's not how it works mate. The first crit to hit was already a 50% odd; it hit but that doesn't influence the chance of both hitting.

>>12002413
I agree that the timing and framing of the question is very important.
But one of the hits is guaranteed to be a crit.

>The first crit to hit was already a 50% odd
No it wasn't.

>>12002414
>The first crit to hit was already a 50% odd
No it wasn't.

>>12002376

You don't re-evaluate the probability after the first hit so it doesn't matter dunce. You should just stop squirming.

The important part is that you don't know which crit is going to be the cheat crit so there is three possibilities

crit,crit
hit,crit
crit,hit

most of you must be trolling. for all the brainlets that tried to use bayes theorem, here is how you do it:
a is first hit, b is second hit, C is crit
p(a = C and b=C | a=C or b=C) = p(a=C or b=C | a = C and b=C)*p(a = C and b=C)/p(a=C or b=C) = 1*(1/4)/(3/4) = 1/3

>>12002424
>You don't re-evaluate the probability after the first hit so it doesn't matter dunce
That's what I'm saying.

Before any hit is landed, you know one is going to be crit.
So all you have to look at is the non-guaranteed hit, which is 50/50 regardless of whether it comes first or second.

1/3.


There are only 3 results possibles.

random crits are fair and balanced

>>12001142
that's either because

a. the answer you think is right is wrong
b. people in your school all being presented with the 'what are prob of two heads if at least 1 toss is a head' problem at some common lecture.

this is a problem where the intuitive answer is wrong. most human beings will get it wrong unless they've been presented with some variety of this problem before, OR have been presented with dozens of unintuitive probability problems.

no way the average gender studies student has been, so they've all been presented the coin-toss problem. either a problem going around at your campus right now, or a problem presented at very common lectures.

>>12002437

Damn, I was wrong in the end.

>>12002437
no you're wrong and

>>12002424
he is right.

just write a script and try simulate it. in scenarios where at least 1 hit is critical, only 1/3rd of the time will both be critical

>>12002529
>just write a script
You're writing that script under false assumptions, I guess.

>>12002545
no you're just very stubborn. it's okay to get this answer wrong, everyone will get it wrong without having been presented with lots of tricky probability problems before.

google

"what is the probability of both coins head if at least one toss is head" or something like that.

>>12001246
You're fucking retarded, one of them is guaranteed a hit, the only remaining one is a 50% chance. The answer is 50%

>>12002491
>this is a problem where the intuitive answer is wrong.
Actually it's a problem where the answer is ambiguous but for some reason people insist that it isn't.
See:
>>12001853

>>12002556
I did google it. See >>12002189

>>12001853
no. the coin toss problem and the gender problem are not isomorph. they are different problems.

>>12002376
Shooting one crit was 1:1 odds. This = 1/2 = 50% but shooting 2 crits and both hitting is 2:1 odds now. 1/3=33% bc the first one already hit so for every 2 times you hit you’re going to miss once which equates to 3 outcomes.

>>12002576
see
>>12002579

>>12002529
totally wrong

2 hits - 1 is criticall
means 50% of the hits is critical.
probability that both hits are critical is 0% you fucking retards.
he already gave you a 50% hit rate once- thats already saying only 1 hit is critical- so the probabiltiy of a 2nd is therefore 0%

fucking retards

>>12002581
>both hitting is 2:1 odds now
This.

>>12002581
This goes on and on. Shooting 5 crits would be 5:1 = 1/6 = 16% chance.

>>12002579
>>12002587
How are they different?

>>12002576
there we know which one is the son and we only have to guess the other one's gender.

it's different if he just tells us "one of them is a son".

it's counter-intuitive, but true. if you know that 'the first hit is criticial' or 'the 2nd hit is cirtical' then the answer is 1/2.
but if you only know 'at least 1 of them is critical' the answer is 1/3.

Person A alredy hit Person B 2 times 1 punch of them was critical.
the chance that a 2nd hit is ciritcal is therefore 0

Pay attention to how the question is asked you fucking morons:

Answer is 0

>>12002606
>there we know which one is the son and we only have to guess the other one's gender.
Yes, and it is irrelevant whether that son is the firstborn or the secondborn.

This is what we are presented with in the OP: one is known to be crit, just like one is known to be a son.

>>12001142
Crit crit
Not not
Crit not
Not crit

Not not isn't an option.

3 options left. 1 in 3 is crit crit

>>12002614
> it is irrelevant whether that son is the firstborn or the secondborn.

it is irrelevant. the question turns into 'what are the odds that the child we're not seeing is a boy'
still have more knowledge.

>>12002623
'what are the odds that the child we're not seeing is a boy'

you cannot phrase the question like this for the scenario in OP. try it.

>>12002623
>>12002631

>the question turns into 'what are the odds that the child we're not seeing is a boy'
Right.

And in the OP it's the exact same thing: 'what are the odds the hit that is unknown is a crit'.

With the odds of a boy or a crit being the exact same: 50%.

>>12002622
Placement is irrelevant though.
Whether the 50/50 hit comes first or second, it's 50/50.

wtf is crit? and how high is it possible to hit and how low? all it is is just the factorial of however many options there r . so if there are 100 possible hits then it is 100! or 100 factorial which is 100 x 99 x 98 x97 x 96 x 95..etc until x1 .. that is if I'm interpreting this right as a video game random number generator hit points type of scenario.

>>12001142
75 percent. This is high-school tier probability. I doubt that many people will get this wrong

>>12002623
>>12002631
>>12002614
you fucking idiots nowhere in this fucking thread we talking about anyones son- you motherfuckers are to retarded to even read the question correct than you agrue over shit thats not even part of the question- you fucking noobs

Answer is 0

OP is trolling you with this question
AGAIN: 2 hits 1 of them is critical- there is a 0% chance for the snd hit to eb critical BECAUSE only 1 of those 2 hits was critical- hence 50% chance of 1 punch beeing critical and a 0 percent chance for the 2nd hit to be critical Because only of of 2 punches is critical

how fuckign dumb are you

>>12002644
Wtf? Are you fucking retarded anon

>>12002655
It says "at least one is crit".
It doesn't say "exclusively one is crit".

>>12002658
What's the problem?

You could even be dual wielding, in which case both hits land at the exact same time.

Chronological order is irrelevant.

thats the correct answer
AGAIN: 2 hits 1 of them is critical- there is a 0% chance for a 2nd hit to be critical BECAUSE only 1 of those 2 hits was critical- hence 50% chance of 1 punch beeing critical and a 0 percent chance for a 2nd hit to be critical Because only of of 2 punches is critical

>>12002644
Hit/Crit
Crit/Hit
Crit/Crit
Two crits happen 1/3rd of the time. Only if the first hit has already been done and been a crit is it 50%.

>>12002668
So consider it hits with right and left. Same thing.

>>12002675
>Hit/Crit
>Crit/Hit

These are the same thing you fucking nigger

>>12002678
Right.

And one of them is guaranteed crit, so all you have to look at is the non-guaranteed hit, which is 50/50.

>>12002675
hit/crit and crit/hit are the same: they're both the "non-crit" outcome of the 50/50 odds.

>>12001142
This is just a variation on the monty Hall problem, and OP is just trying to make himself feel superior when he probably had to look the answer up before posting, as the answer is actually very unintuitive.

Tldr: OP = Faggot

>>12001142
Bad English + faulty math = 300 replies

if there are 6 sides on a dye the chance of landing on any of the sides twice is 12 factorial or written 12! .. because there r 12 possibilities so the chance it lands on 6 twice in a row is 1 in (12x 11x10...etc until x1).. or 1 in 479,001,600 but that is according to math which has no end so its if there were unlimited rolls that percentage of rolls would have landed on the same side twice but u would eventually need to stop rolling the die and get water or food or whatever so we couldn't accurately observe it

and to solve this problem I need a definition of a critical hit... is that 50% damage or is a critical hit 100%? wtf is this question asking

>>12002728
>Assuming a 50% crit chance

It doesnt say anything about damage in the question. Not sure how that confuses you.

>>12002567
>>12001287
it does indeed seem like a third tho
>1 CRIT 2 NO
>1 NO 2 CRIT
>1 CRIT 2 CRIT
that's a third brehs

if its not a game its impossible because you can't know how much a critical hit is in a real fight theres no hit points floating on their heads

assuming a 50% crit chance
ok so there are two hits with a 50% chance of being a crit and 50% of being not crit and one of them was a crit so the chance that its happens again is 4! or 4x3x2x1 or 1 in 24 assuming that the only hit options are crit or not crit

If you don't land a crit on your first hit, there is a 100% chance guaranteed that your next hit will crit. If you do land a crit, there is a 50% chance your next hit will crit. The answer is 50%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

>Mr. Jones has two children. The older child is a girl. What is the probability that both children are girls?
>Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?

Gardner initially gave the answers 1/2 and 1/3, respectively, but later acknowledged that the second question was ambiguous.[3] Its answer could be 1/2, depending on how you found out that one child was a boy. The ambiguity, depending on the exact wording and possible assumptions, was confirmed by Bar-Hillel and Falk,[4] and Nickerson.[5]

no because after it happens once the chance of it happening the very next hit get way less which is where the factorial concept come in.. google factorial and probability

It's 25%
The fact you know one its a crit has no influence on the outcome
.5×.5=.25

>>12002835
If only this was the first post

>>12002414

No, that's /exactly/ how it works. >>12002376 is correct. And you are wrong. Simply because you failed to correctly read the text in the OP picture.

The text already has established that one hit was a crit -- in other words that's guaranteed 100%. So that's already established. So it's not part of the equation.

So,
as one hit has already been dealt,
and it was a crit,
in effect,
the question says this:

"You now hit the enemy 1 time; and for that 1 time hit there's a 50% chance that it's a crit."

So the "question" has already answered itself. Some people can't see this.

>>12001845
>>12001909


>>12002893
They already post it here.

the question is what is the chance it hits a crit again after just hitting one

https://www.strawpoll.me/16975396

>>12002701
>correctly identifies a type of probability puzzle involved instead of getting in endless debate about basic math and logic principles.
>understands what kind of person OP is and what he's really doing.
>doesn't call everyone idiot because they don't know the answer which isn't really obvious.
>correctly concludes that OP is a faggot.
>uses the relevant meme.

Now that are signs of a really intelligent person.

>>12001840
Anon, I have bad news for you.

>>12001142
Both 50% and 33% are correct.
The problem is misleading as it doesn't state whether or not order matters.
If order doesn't matter only counting for two shots then it is 50%.

If order does matter then it is 33%.

To solve the problem there are two different assumptions that end up with different results.

>>12002998
The problem is purposely misleading aka Bait.

>>12002675
>>12002778
So many people post this, but why would positioning matter?
Whether it's "crit - nocrit" or "nocrit - crit", positioning and chronology is irrelevant.

According to your logic, there are four scenarios, meaning a 25% chance.

Let's use 'gC' for the "guaranteed crit", and 'fC' for the "fifty/fifty crit".
And just H for a regular nocrit hit.

1) gC - fC
2) fC - gC
3) gC - H
4) H - gC

In reality, it does not matter if the 'gC' comes before or after the 'fC', just like it does not matter if the regular nocrit hit comes before or after the 'gC'.

>>12003055
>meaning 25% chance
Actually, this is wrong.
This scenario boils down to 50% chance: two with double crit and two with single crit.

So even according to this chronology logic, it's 50%.

>>12003055
You’re overthinking this its still 33% if positioning matter. Imagine 50/50 on first hit.

If you miss the second is guaranteed hit.

Otherwise if you hit you have 50/50 to miss/hit.

Like i said before the problem fails to state whether positioning matters and is misleading.>>12003055

1) There are 3 scenarios where AT LEAST one crit is had (the 4th being no crits at all)
2) out of those three possible scenarios, only one ends in a double crit
3) 1/3 = 33%

>>12003098
Wait im a brainlet its 25%

>>12003055
who says chronology is irrelevant?
if you miss the first one you crit on the second
however if you crit on the first you are not guaranteed a crit on the second one
so they're not the same thing and therefore there's still 3 possibilities

>>12003098
If positioning matters, then the positioning of the two crits also matters.

Therefore, you have to count both "gC-fC" and "fC-gC" as options.

That makes it 50% chance of two crits.

25% gC-fC
25% fC-gC
both of the above amounting to 50% double crit

and

25% gC-H
25% H-gC
both of the above amounting to 50% single crit

Hence: 50%

>>12003101
You need to draw a probability tree. Its 50/50 to miss or hit.
If you hit then its 25/25

But if order doesnt matter its 50% chance to hit.

>>12003115
Chronology is irrelevant for the same reason 2/6ths boils down to 1/3rd.

See >>12003121

>>12003121
It could be either situation to be frank. Another thing the problem doesnt address.

>>12001181
ayy, lmao, kek

>>12003141
>It could be either situation to be frank.
Well yes, it's 50/50.

>>12003151
We don’t know how the guaranteed crit works. Whether its decided on a certain hit (your situation) or after the first hit (my situation). If its yours its 50 ok?
If its mine its 25.

Unless there was extra information you know that I don’t.

>>12003168
The premise in OP says the guaranteed crit could be either.

>>12002994
Much appreciated anon. Cheers to you.

>>12003125
>You need to draw a probability tree
I did. You seem to be incapable of doing it.

>>12003174
>At least one is a crit
My situation is still valid. Doesn’t state if guaranteed crit is predetermined or determined by first hit.
The problem doesn’t state.

>>12003202
Here ill do it for you then.

Start 100
Crit 50 nocrit 50
Crit 25 No crit 25. Crit 50

See how each level adds to 100
This is a probability tree.

>>12001710
>>12001747
>>12001794
>>12001805
>>12001816
>>12001817
>>12001840
>>12001846
>>12001870
>>12001873
>>12001876
>>12001881
>>12001895
>>12001961
>There are three scenarios

If the positioning "crit-noncrit" vs "noncrit-crit" matters, then so does the positioning of the two crits.

This gives four possible scenarios:

1) guaranteed crit + chance crit (25%)
2) chance crit + guaranteed crit (25%)
>(both of the above = 50% double crit)

3) noncrit hit + guaranteed crit (25%)
4) guaranteed crit + noncrit hit (25%)
>(both of the above = 50% double crit)

Thus, it boils down to 50% chance of double crit.
Meaning positioning doesn't matter, like I said.

This anon made it explicit ages ago: >>12001843

>>12001710
>>12001747
>>12001794
>>12001805
>>12001816
>>12001817
>>12001840
>>12001846
>>12001870
>>12001873
>>12001876
>>12001881
>>12001895
>>12001961
>There are three scenarios

If the positioning "crit-noncrit" vs "noncrit-crit" matters, then so does the positioning of the two crits.

This gives four possible scenarios:

1) guaranteed crit + chance crit (25%)
2) chance crit + guaranteed crit (25%)
>(both of the above = 50% double crit)

3) noncrit hit + guaranteed crit (25%)
4) guaranteed crit + noncrit hit (25%)
>(both of the above = 50% single crit)

Thus, it boils down to 50% chance of double crit.
Meaning positioning doesn't matter, like I said.

This anon made it explicit ages ago: >>12001790

>>12001387
It's not a random outcome if one of the outcomes is guaranteed.

I was first thinking it was 50%.
Since if you already know one is a crit, it's a 100% chance, so the only thing that mattered was the other hit, which was 50%

-----

But then >>12001611 started talking about programming, and I realized, I was ASSUMING the guaranteed crit had already happened and witnessed by an observer, which is why it is guaranteed and 100% probability.
BUT it could actually be programmed instead!

Imagine, there was an MMORPG skill, that does 2 hits when it's cast.
And one is guaranteed to crit.
i.e.

function two_hit_combo() {
> firstHit = randomCrit()
>
>if isCrit(firstHit) {secondHit = randomCrit()}
>else {secondHit = guaranteedCrit()}
}

Basically, an ability that has two hits per cast, and one will always crit.
If the first is not a crit, the 2nd is a guaranteed crit.
If the first is a crit, the 2nd is random.
This has the outcomes:
>crit-notcrit, crit-crit, notcrit-crit

That's 33% chance for the skill to do a double crit when you cast it.

Then I was thinking, this means there are two possibilities:
> If you randomly get CRIT, the remaining choices are CRIT and NOTCRIT.
> If you randomly get NOTCRIT, the remaining choice is only CRIT.

And I realized, a way to simulate ALL the choices in the first one without programming is by imitating that probability problem where you draw balls from a box blindfolded.
You can assign a ball to the first CRIT, then assign two balls to the remaining choices, one more CRIT and a NONCRIT one.

Basically you have 3 balls, two are labelled as CRIT, one labelled as NONCRIT.
And you draw 2 balls blindfolded.
The possible outcomes of drawing 2 balls are:
>1: 1st:crit1, 2nd:notcrit
>2: 1st:crit1, 2nd:crit2
>3: 1st:crit2, 2nd:crit1
>4: 1st:crit2, 2nd:notcrit
>5: 1st:notcrit, 2nd:crit1
>6: 1st:notcrit, 2nd:crit2
2 out of 6 (outcomes 2 and 3) = 33%

---

But I still prefer the skill that does 2 hits per cast, with one guaranteed crit
It just makes it simple, only 3 outcomes:
>crit-notcrit, crit-crit, notcrit-crit

>>12003359
It's 50%, you can determine this before anything even happens.

See >>12003292

>>12003372
Did you even read my post?

>>12003292 does not apply at all to my scenario.

I was talking about an MMORPG skill where if you cast it, it does two hits automatically.

ITS PROGRAMMED to randomize the 2nd hit ONLY when you crit the 1st hit.

If the 1st hit crits, then the 2nd hit is random.
If the 1st hit doesn't crit, ONLY THEN do you get a guaranteed 2nd hit crit.

So in your quoted >>12003292, #2 is nonexistent.
Because if you get 1st hit as a chance crit, the remaining hit is random.

>>12003395
>ITS PROGRAMMED to randomize the 2nd hit ONLY when you crit the 1st hit.
Oh, so you're not following the OP's premise?

Kinda misleading when you started your post by saying "I was first thinking it was 50%, but then (...)".

>>12003407
OP's premise is "at least one of the hits is a crit".
But then you have to ask "WHY is it guaranteed to be a crit??"

If you already saw it was a crit, then yes, it's 50%, because you already saw it so it's 100%.

The ONLY other option is if the "code" was cheating, and is INTENTIONALLY changing the outcome based on what happened on the first hit.

i.e. it's not a fair draw of probabilities
As >>12001362 said, it's a "Monty Hall" variation (where the game host changes the outcomes)

Or in this case, the game code changes the 2nd hit based on what the 1st hit was (if it was not a crit, then it will no longer use a randomizer and just give you a free crit).

IMO this is much more logical,
e.g. if you have a monk class character who has a skill "1-2Punch"

>>12003423
One of them. Not the first one specifically.

>>12003423
>But then you have to ask "WHY is it guaranteed to be a crit??"
You don't have to ask this at all.

>If you already saw it was a crit, then yes, it's 50%, because you already saw it so it's 100%.
It's 50% even if you didn't see anything yet.

And the question is "what are the odds of TWO crits".
And that's not 100%.

>As >>12001362 said
That poster assumed you could have two non-crits, which goes against the premise.

>>12003439
That's exactly what I coded for, did you read my post here? >>12003359

e.g. if you have a monk class character who has a skill "1-2Punch"
Deals 2 hits, one is a guaranteed crit.

The code will be:
if 1st hit is crit, randomize 2nd hit
if 1st hit is not crit, 2nd hit == crit

That's the only PRACTICAL scenario IMO where OP's premise applies.

>>12003444
Are you even reading what I am posting though?
I am trying to apply this PRACTICALLY in game code, say you were coding a game (which is the only real scenario where crits apply)

If you have a monk class character who has a skill "1-2Punch"
Deals 2 hits, one is a guaranteed crit.

The only outcomes are:
1st hit random(=crit), 2nd hit random(=crit)
1st hit random(=crit), 2nd hit random(=notcrit)
1st hit random(=notcrit), 2nd hit NOT RANDOM (=free crit)

There's only 3 outcomes the game code will allow if there's such a skill.

+Vf2/isu spent 5 hours arguing a troll question. Just let that sink in.

>>12003457
If you want to actually follow the OP's premis according to the laws of probability, this is how the options look:

>1) first hit is crit
1.1: first hit is random crit + second hit is guaranteed crit
1.2: first hit is guaranteed crit + second hit is random crit
1.3: first hit is guaranteed crit + second hit is noncrit

>2) first hit is noncrit
2.1: first hit is noncrit + second hit is guaranteed crit

Two of the four options result in double crit, the two others in single crit.

>>12003485
I work from home, this has been a very helpful distraction that increases my productivity.

You're just mad you got schooled.

>>12003544
>You're just mad you got schooled.
Where did I get schooled, you autistic retard? You are plain WRONG for arguing there is only one approach to OP's retarded ambiguous question.

>>12003583
Then show me the other approach.

Because the only counter I've seen so far is the "three scenarios" bit, which is plainly false because of >>12003292

>50% crit chance
>one of the hits is always a crit

>>12003594
If 1st hit is non-crit, 2nd hit is 100% crit
If 1st hit is crit, roll again

There, go try it, brainlet.
https://www.random.org/

>>12003612
>If 1st hit is non-crit, 2nd hit is 100% crit
>If 1st hit is crit, roll again
That first crit could be the guaranteed crit or a 50/50 crit.

As this poster shows: >>12003481
some approaches do not account for true probability since they magically turn the first crit into the guaranteed crit. Which is fallacious under the OP's premise.

>>12001237
Unironically right answer. Question is evasive but only 1/4 paths do not have ANY heads.

My bet is faggot op thinks its 50% or something.

It's funny how stupid most of you are.
It's 50% chance crit the first strike
And the second strike has a 50% chance of critical.
The third would have the same chances of having 50% critical along with the 500 other hits after that, the odds would always be 50% for that action.
Just like one anon said, it's like a coin toss.
Because you landed on heads 10 times in a row it's still 50/50 that it'll land on head again.

Have none of you ever gambled? if you did or do and don't understand that simple concept you have no business gambling.

It's why card counting works. If you can see how many cards are on the table, you know the odds of you getting a certain card are higher or lower because the deck only has so many cards.

You Fucking idiots should google wizard of odds.

>>12001142
100%

>>12003630
What about this logic >>12003292
?

>>12003635
>It's 50% chance crit the first strike
That's not right.
it's actually 75% crit the first strike, see >>12003535

>ITT desperate verbose mental gymnastics
it's 33%

>>12003626
Yep, this is pointless. You're autistic, arrogant and stupid.

>>12003678
Wrong quote?

Man these bait threads are golden.
Can we get one started about leveraged trading. I love starting those up, it does hurt a little to know that I surround myself with complete IDIOTS but it does make me feel better about myself to know that most of you burgers are incredibly stupid.

>>12003667
It's 50% actually.

1) guaranteed crit + chance crit (25%)
2) chance crit + guaranteed crit (25%)
>(both of the above = 50% double crit)

3) noncrit hit + guaranteed crit (25%)
4) guaranteed crit + noncrit hit (25%)
>(both of the above = 50% single crit)

Thus, it boils down to 50% chance of double crit.

wtf is wrong with you people? the probability for the second bullet to hit iss still 50%....just imagine having a sword in an rpg with 50% crit chance....the crit chance of the sword never changes its always 50% at each hit ....ur telling be a crit chance of my sword changes because i critted on the first hit? are you empeople dumb mcdobalds workers?

>>12003725
>ur telling be a crit chance of my sword changes because i critted on the first hit?
That's exactly what they're telling you.

They think that if the first hit is crit, that automatically makes it the guaranteed crit from the premise.

>>12003678
Don't slink away now, fren.

Please give it another try and poke a hole in my logic here >>12003626
instead of calling me names.

>>12003645
>75%
Actually I misread question, thought it was 'any' crit. But the question actually comes down to interpretation. Does the 'at least 1' mean that the path where there are zero is TAKEN OUT OF EQUATION (therefore giving us the 1/3 type probabilities) or is it a postfacto where out of the 4 paths there has to be at least one crit (which in this case the answer is 25%)

>>12003645
Dude.
Take a coin and flip it 100 times and mark down heads or tails.
With your information can you guarantee that you know the outcome of flip 101?
If that's the case then let's flip a coin 100 times then bet with a random stranger 10 dollars. You'll be rich in no time genius.

>>12003535
>>12003535
You totally threw away the logic of the "free crit", which in my pseudocode can happen ONLY as the 2nd hit, just to force in your logic of the guaranteed crit having a chance to happen as the 1st hit.

In my pseudocode, 1st hit can NEVER be a guaranteed crit, only by chance.

You want to follow "OP's premise", which in itself is already unclrear, AND mine is a more realistic scenario, where if there is a 2hit skill where it's coded to have at least one crit.
And what is the probability of that skill doing double crits.
It's not 50%.

The problem is your interpretation of "at least one is a crit" of OP,

>>12003745
If you apply true probability, and actually consider the "assuming 50% crit chance" statement from the premise, then the chance of double crit is 50%.

If you magically turn any first hit crit into the guaranteed crit from the premise (thereby ignoring the "assuming 50% crit chance" from the premise), then it's 1/3nd.

>>12003736
>>12003744
>They think that if the first hit is crit, that automatically makes it the guaranteed crit from the premise.
But it literally does. It's a condition. If that condition is met on the first hit, then the second roll is 50/50.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
Everything is explained here, and yet you still refuse to read/acknowledge it.

>>12003757
>You totally threw away the logic of the "free crit", which in my pseudocode can happen ONLY as the 2nd hit
I know exactly what you mean.

According to your logic, the first crit can ONLY be the guaranteed crit from the premise.
In reality, the premise says "assuming a 50% crit chance", which applies to the first hit as well. And you're completely ignoring this.

You're giving too much weight to the "at least one is a crit" statement.
I'm giving equal weight to all parts of the premise.

>>12003768
>But it literally does. It's a condition.
No it's not.

It says "at least one is crit", and it also says "50% crit chance".
This "50% crit chance" also applies to the first hit if that's a crit.

The first crit could be the guaranteed crit, or it could be the 50/50 crit.

>>12003784
>No it's not.
See, you dismiss a perfectly valid interpretation of OP's problem because you're autistic and unable to admit you're wrong. That does make you a huge faggot and there's nothing more to discuss.

>>12003768
>>12003757
To put it more succinctly: the laws of probability are not influenced at all by past or future performances.
You are making the second hit be influenced by the first hit.

>>12003775
> the premise says "assuming a 50% crit chance", which applies to the first hit as well. And you're completely ignoring this.

The 50% crit chance and "at least one is a crit" is contradictory though.
If you want to be strict about the 50% crit chance, "at least one is a crit" cannot be true since it won't be a 50% chance if the "not crit + not crit" possibility can't happen.

So I'm applying 50% chance to everything EXCEPT the free crit. That's the only logical way for me to work around that contradiction.

>>12003790
It's not valid though.

The premise says "assuming 50% crit chance", so why would this not apply to the first hit if it's a crit?

>>12003796
>The 50% crit chance and "at least one is a crit" is contradictory though.
Not at all.

The first hit (if it's a crit) could be down to chance (as the premise says: "50% crit chance"), and the entire premise would still hold up so long as the second is the guaranteed crit.

In order for your logic to stick, you have to assume that "50% crit chance" does NOT apply to the first hit (if it's a crit).

>>12003813
>It's not valid though.
Because you say so?
>so why would this not apply
And why would it? Does the problem in OP state one way or another? No it doesn't. It can be both 1/2 or 1/3 depending on how you interpret this moronically formulated problem.

Now go fuck yourself, I'm getting tired of your autistic drivel. I hope you waste another 5 hours of your life ITT.

>>12003813
> Not at all.
If the first hit is not a crit, then if you want to be strict with the 50% chance, the 2nd hit SHOULD have 50% chance to be not a crit as well.

But it doesn't!
THERE is your contradiction.

In fact, I just looked at the link posted here:
>>12003768
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

It seems this problem is a rip off of that as it says:
> Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?

It's almost the same question, except your 50% premise (while it's still implicitly there), is not outright stated.

And the answer was supposedly 1/3
But the author
> later acknowledged that the second question was ambiguous

They intentionally don't teach kids statistics in schools, most people can't calculate basic odds or understand a statistical distribution (that's why NAXALT is the go to NPC argument).

Imagine if the population understood stats and had access to FBI crime statistics and books like the Bell Curve?

>>12003833
>Because you say so?
Because of the rest of my post.

>And why would it?
Because it's literally in the premise.

>It can be both 1/2 or 1/3 depending on how you interpret this moronically formulated problem.
If you assume that probability does not apply to the first crit hit, then sure.

>>12003842
Under the 1/3 logic, you have to make more assumptions than under the 1/2 logic.

>>12001142
Either 1 in 2 or 1 in 3. Don't ask me which i don't know.

REMINDER THAT THIS QUESTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROBABILITY AND IS AN EXERCISE IN EXPLAINING WHY LANGUAGES RUIN LOGIC. THANK YOU BASED WITTGENSTEIN

>>12003842
>If the first hit is not a crit, then if you want to be strict with the 50% chance, the 2nd hit SHOULD have 50% chance to be not a crit as well.
Well no because one is guaranteed to crit.

>>12001142
100%

>>12003711
It says what is the probability that both hits are critical
You don't just ignore the outcome of one circumstantially guaranteed critical hit when computing the probability of the other.
You 50%ers would fail at the monty hall problem too

>>12003858
C=crit
N=normal hit

Your 3 options for how it can go down
CN
NC
CC

Therefore only 1 in 3 options are both crit

You can also argue that CN and NC are the same and aren't distingueshed by the question therefore there are only 2 distinct possibilities and the answer is 1 in 2.

>>12003927
>C=crit
Well there are two types of crit: one type is the guaranteed crit (gC), the other is the fifty-fifty crit (fC).

So there are four options:
gC + fC
fC + gC
N + gC
gC + N

>>12003906
Why can the first crit not be a 50% crit?
It literally says in the premise that there's a 50% crit chance.
So if the first hit can be non-crit, BY DEFINITION that means it can also be crit.

>>12003906
Imagine you're dual wielding, and you hit the enemy twice at the exact same time meaning there is no "first" hit.
All you can say is there's the "right-hand hit", and the "left-hand hit".

In the case of double crit, either hand could be the 50% crit.

If you apply this logic to a scenario with two subsequent crit hits, then the first hit should be able to be the 50% crit.

>>12003833
See >>12003977