My statistics theory.

[Brobot !!hvxa+9soaBg No.3414257]

I have a theory about statistics and everyone I've ever told it too just tells me I'm wrong and refuses to actually form a coherent argument why it's wrong.
So I come you gentlemen.
here we go;
Okay, so you have your friends right?
Now before you met any of these people, if you cracked open a country-wide phonebook and picked a name at random, odds are good that you would not of picked one of your friends. If I opened the phone book today and picked a name, not going out of my way to meet them, I probably never would. But none the less you have met these people, against the odds you are friends with the people you had a very slim chance of picking.
>Here's were the disagreement starts.
Okay, so now I'll take the same principle and apply it to the lottery.
The odds of me picking the winning numbers are very slim. So by not actively picking my lottery numbers, my chances of winning should increase. Just like how I bested the odd of meeting one individual by not trying to meet them specifically.
How does this not make sense to anyone else?

pic unrelated

[Brobot !!hvxa+9soaBg No.3414287]

>>3414257
I would like to add, I've never taken a statistics class, so if I'm disregarding a crucial element of the math, that's why. It's just the kind of things I like to think about when I'm bored.

[Anonymous No.3414289]

Seems you are decreasing the denominator in a wins/attempts ratio. In the long run the statistical probability of winning the lottery certainly would not change though.

[Brobot !!hvxa+9soaBg No.3414294]

>>3414289
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

[Anonymous No.3414297]

The chances of picking the same friends are lower because you would have to pick the <span class="math">same[/spoiler] friends. That lowers the chances from 1/x to 1/x * 1/X. The chances are higher to meet them in the first place. Similarly, with the lottery, you would have to pick the same numbers as the winning numbers are. It doesn't matter shit if you actively pick those or not.

[Anonymous No.3414301]

What you're missing is the notion of statistical independence. You meet the people you meet because you either live near them, go to school with them, work with them, or otherwise physically encountered them. This has nothing to do with picking names out of a phonebook, uniformly at random (ievery name has the same chance of being picked).
Essentially, picking a name at random and physically meeting people are not the same "experiment", in the same way that playing roulette and rolling dice are not the same scenario.

[Brobot !!hvxa+9soaBg No.3414311]

>>3414301
That makes sense. Damn...

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3414583]

>>3414257
Getting a random group of friends by randomly picking names from a phonebook isn't unlikely. Getting a specific sequence of numbers by picking numbers at random is.

[Anonymous No.3414726]

decide to browse /sci/. see this. what do?
please let this be a troll.
>everyone I've ever told it too just tells me I'm wrong and refuses to actually form a coherent argument why it's wrong
that's because it's wrong on almost every level it can be wrong. there isn't really anything to argue about, it simply doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous No.3414743]

>>3414257
>Okay, so you have your friends right?

stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.3414750]

>>3414287

statistics isn't a crucial element of math....

STOCHASTICS IS!!! And everybody has to learn it in school..

[Anonymous No.3414752]

Hmmm, honestly I don't think it hurts or improves your outcome at all. It's chance.

[Anonymous No.3414765]

>>3414257
When I say OP is a retarded faggot I'm right, so statisticaly if I say OP is a retarded faggot while playing the lottery I get the winning numbers.

Anyone else realizes the flawlesness of my superior logic.