you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 103 points 2 years ago (25 children)

Having two possible outcomes does not mean it's a 50:50 chance.

"So if I aim the arrow at the 1cm square from 100m away and shoot, I either hit it or I don't. So basically I have a 50% chance of hitting it."

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 94 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    My wife, father-in-law and I were playing a board game with my brother-in-law. In this game, we were playing as detectives who have to try to find his character, but each turn he could move in secret in one of several directions. We were a few turns in at one point and he could have been in any of dozens of places at this point. We drove him nuts by saying "he's either in this spot or he's not, it's a 50-50 chance." He kept arguing "I could be in a ton of places! It's not a 50-50 chance!" But we just kept pretending we didn't understand and arguing that there were only two possibilities, he's there or he's not, so it was clearly a 50-50 chance. He got quite angry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Scotland Yard or Letters from Whitechapel?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I love Scotland Yard. We got it for a friend who loves detective stories. Then discovered that it’s a public transit simulator which is even better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Honestly, Letters From Whitechapel is a better design of the same concept.

    For detective story games, Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective is amazing.

    And for public transit games, Bus is the way to go (probably)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Lol Sherlock Holmes consulting detective is probably fun as a single player game, but we played it as a party game (cause it said you could do that) and the result is just chaos.

    We got on what we were pretty sure was the right track and got into some rabbit holes, brought it back to Sherlock and he basically told us to fuck off and die and we earned negative points. I think we got one part of one of his answers and didn't even visit most of the places that would have given us at least a few answers.

    Great for a laugh though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I would say it should be fine as a solo game if you’re into that, but better as a 2-3 player game to have someone to discuss and bounce ideas against.

    I can imagine that as a party game it would be chaotic for sure!

    Definitely needs the right group, and I think you can’t take the scoring too seriously, especially playing in larger groups. Pretty sure I also have never had a positive score even in a smaller group.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Yeah that's why I say it's good for a laugh. If a game is nearly impossible to get a decent score in, it can't been taking itself too seriously. You're meant to sit back and watch the master Sherlock Holmes do his thing and nail the mystery. Often it's fun and you get some "oh yeah" moments where he points out a detail that makes a lot of clues click, but sometimes the leaps in logic are just unhinged. Also there was another mystery I remember distinctly where in order to get the correct line, you had to have some random bit of trivia knowledge about Sherlock-era English style cause it was based on someone's hat.

    Now that I write this, I bet there's a lot of fun bits for people who have read all of the Sherlock books and "get" the logic of that world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

    Very weird fun fact about arrows/darts and statistics, theres 0% chance of hitting an exact bullseye. You can hit it its possible to throw a perfect bullseye. It just has a probability of zero when mathematically analyzed due to being an infinitesimally small point. Sound like I'm making shit up? Here's the sauce

    How can an outcome both be entirely possible and have 0% probability?

    Q.E.D

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Key word here is "infinitesimally." Of course if you're calculating the odds of hitting something infinitesimally small you're going to get 0. That's just the nature of infinities. It is impossible to hit an infinitesimally small point, but that's not what a human considers to be a "perfect bullseye." There's no paradox here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Another lesson I the importance of significant digits, a concept I've had to remind many a young (and sometimes an old) engineer about. An interesting idea along similar lines is that 2 + 2 can equal 5 for significantly large values of 2.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What do you mean by significantly large

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    Depending on how you're rounding, I assume. Standard rounding to whole digits states that 2.4 will round to 2 but 4.8 will round to 5. So 2.4+2.4=4.8 can be reasonably simplified to 2+2=5.

    This is part of why it's important to know what your significant digits are, because in this case the tenths digit is a bit load bearing. But, as an example, 2.43 the 3 in the hundredths digit has no bearing on our result and can be rounded or truncated.

  • source
  • parent
  • The thing with that is that it's actually a useful generalization to make in a lot of scenarios.

    If you know nothing about the distinction between two possible outcomes, treating them as equally likely is a helpful tool to continue with the back of the envelope guess. Knowing this path needs 5 coin tosses to go right and this one needs 10 is helpful to approximate which is better.

    Your example is obviously outside the realm where you have zero information, so uniform distribution is no longer the reasonable default. But the idea is from a reasonable technique, taken to extremes by someone who doesn't fully get it.

  • source
  • parent