On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 43%? Are you sure? I think it should be 51.8%. Then again, depending on > his grades at Yale, maybe only 47.53%. Just spitballing here . . . but I > don't see where you came up with 43%. > > - Jed >
While naturally some things come with a genuine probability, such as the odds in, well gambling. But these kinds of estimates of probability in regard real world things such as this are never point anything unless it is 0.00001% or 99.9999% But I'd go further and say that anything other than the following is probably just talking, well you know... 0.00001% Almost no chance 1% Really unlikely, but definitely possible. A real long shot. 20% very real chance, but still less likely than not 50% Around about about even as far as I can tell. 80% Probably will happen, but there is still a real chance it won't. 99% Really likely, but not certain, could be considered 'a sure thing' though. 99.99999% Almost certain, I wouldn't worry. Sure, you could argue that maybe there should be 40% or 60%, but such slight edges are mostly due to bias in evaluation, wishful thinking. And have little utility. Anything more or less sure going into 80% or 20%. What good does 30% of subjective probability do different to 20%? What good is 60 or 70%? These slight edges one way are based on ego and bias, wishful thinking and fear. And even if real, in a one shot instance the difference between 35% and 65% is debatable since there is a very reasonable probability of 'winning' with a 35% probability (of success) and losing at 65% probability (of success). Only on multiple trials even if these probabilities are genuine would their difference really show through. 43% is an unbalanced mind and out of control ego in need of help, or a big rest.
