View Single Post

Cleet_Xia's Avatar


Cleet_Xia
02.12.2013 , 06:04 PM | #29
Quote: Originally Posted by Darth_Sweets View Post
Reverse Reverse
Engineering Engineering
Attempts Successes
9 - 1
15 - 2
5 - 1
6 - 1
1 - 1 36 - 6 = 16.66%
5 - 0
5 - 1
5 - 0
10 - 1
19 - 5 80 - 13 = 16.25%
15 - 4
8 - 2
10 - 2
10 - 2
1 - 1 124 - 24 = 19.35% <----
24 - 7 148 - 31 = 20.94% |
10 - 0 158 - 31 = 19.62% E ===== Hmmm.... interesting....
7 - 2 165 - 33 = 20.00% |
5 - 0 170 - 33 = 19.41% |
9 - 2 169 - 35 = 20.07% <----
10 - 1
5 - 1
5 - 0
10 - 1
10 - 0 209 - 38 = 18.18%
10 - 1
10 - 1
10 - 0
4 - 1
15 - 0 258 - 41 = 15.89%
9 - 2
10 - 1
5 - 0
5 - 0
5 - 0 292 - 44 = 15.06% <--- after this point is where it fell into the outland
10 - 1 302 - 45 = 14.09%
5 - 1 307 - 46 = 14.98%
10 - 1
10 - 0
5 - 0 332 - 47 = 14.1%
2 - 1
5 - 0
10 - 0
7 - 1
13 - 2
8 - 1
15 - 2 392 - 54 = 13.77%

This gives a 13.4 percent mean. Using a standard confidence calculation with 99.7 percent boundary if 20 percent is the true mean as defined in the tool tip the average for the sample above should be between 14.3 to 25.7 percent. With the mean sample is out of the 99.7 boundary that mean that it is almost impossible that the 20 percent is the true rate of getting a new plan.
1) If your next 169 results played out like your first 169 you'd be looking at a 561 - 89 = 15.86%..... which is within your boundary.

2) If you were to add another sample this size that were a similar outlier but full of successes (say 392 - 98 = 25%)

that would give you.....784 - 152 = 19.38%

3) 0.03% is not anywhere close to "nearly impossible" for a sample this small out of the millions of RE checks that happen over the timeframe that you collected this sample.

4) This is a sample size problem. And that is illustrated by how rapidly your % successes is still changing over half way through the sample. 3 additional succeses would have brought your results within your boundary.
~Master Telagtun Telag of Lord Calypho~