While there are people in this thread that have basic confusions on the subject of probability, the OP (Darth_Sweets) is certainly not one of them.

He used a type of statistical analysis called a confidence interval, and performed sophisticated math analyzing his raw data. **The only disagreement I had with his analysis was the sample size**, not his methods or understanding of probability.

Either you didn't actually read the OP, or you didn't understand what he was saying.

While I agree with your general point (perhaps the poster you replied to was referring to another contributor in this thread) - the bolded is a pretty huge problem. OP stated it's "almost impossible that the 20 percent is the true rate of getting a new plan" which is patently ridiculous based on the extremely limited data. I don't care how sophisticated his methods are (I agree he does seem to have a good grasp of the tools involved), but sample size is such a critical factor here that I can't really blame anyone for assuming OP has some gaps in his understanding of probability.

No offense @OP - go ahead and run another few thousand trials, and re-run your analysis. Then we'll talk.