Are you freaking kidding me?

"ZAP;c-1908426" wrote:

"YaeVizsla;c-1907965" wrote:

"ZAP;c-1907836" wrote:
Hmmm, you said the exact same thing I said with a bunch of “stuff” in between.

What I said was absolutely true and you even confirmed it in the above bolded sentence.

It’s no different than percentages in poker hands. Those percentages are derived from millions of trials, not a handful. The more trials, the more you narrow the range, we’re saying the same thing, aren’t we?

No, we did not say the same thing. For reasons you are doubling down on by going up into the millions.

Your original post:

"Hundreds is not even close to figuring out averages. Hundreds of thousands is getting warmer, but will still create some outliers"

This is an extremely disingenuous take.

You set an impossible goal. You set a nigh unattainable standard to achieve the impossible goal. Then you concern troll a vanishingly implausible potential failing even if you achieve the nigh unattainable standard.

That's not an accurate assessment of statistics. That's rhetoric to dismiss statistics as an accessible tool.

Fact of the matter is smaller data sets are valid ways to draw conclusions with appropriate caveats. Being able to say with 99% confidence that the drop rate on finishers is between 15 and 30 percent is meaningful, actionable data. It does not require millions of trials. And while a narrower range would be lovely and will come in time, you only ever need so much precision and an arbitrary degree of precision for all practical purposes is attainable LONG before the hundreds of thousand of trials you initially stated.

Ah I see now we are not talking about the same thing and we are both correct.

You are correct that for practical purposes, namely our own personal experiences and expectations, we can assign a range of expected percent based results, based on smaller datasets.