Skip to main content

What's the chances? Think AND

Probability comes into our life in all sorts of ways, as I explore in Dice World, from the obvious toss of the dice and outcome of a lottery draw, through the way we assess risk, to the fundamental level of probability in the quantum particles that make up everything around us. This presents a bit of a problem because, frankly, our brains aren't wired to get the hang of probability. It doesn't fit with what we normally consider to be common sense.

There's one very simple aspect of probability that people often struggle with, but that can very useful, and that's combining the chances of something occurring in two or more separate events. I think there's a very easy way of getting your head around this by considering the magic AND (as they would say in primary school).

Here's the deal. Say, for instance, you like to play the UK lottery's game Thunderball. This has a special ball (you guessed it) the Thunderball, for which you get a prize if you match just that single ball. It can be anything between 1 and 14, so you have a 1 in 14 (or to put it another a 1/14) chance of winning the Thunderball part with a single ticket. But what if you enter both the Friday and Saturday draw with your number? How does that change your chance of winning?

Common sense would probably say, clearly you are more likely to win with two goes, so let's add the probabilities together. 1/14+1/14 = 1/7 - you have a one in seven chance of winning. Unfortunately for common sense, this is clearly wrong. If it were true, you could guarantee a win by entering 14 draws, so you would have 1/14+1/14+1/14... fourteen times, adding up to 1. An absolute certainty of winning. But clearly this isn't the case. It's entirely possible that after fourteen draws your number still hasn't come up. What's more, what would happen if you entered 15 draws? Somehow you would have a 15/14 chance of winning, whatever that means.

You can, of course, guarantee a win with 14 tickets, but only by buying 1 ticket for each of the 14 numbers and just entering 1 draw - but that's not we're about here.

Okay, you might think, maybe we combine probabilities by multiplying them together. So if there's a 1/14 chance with one draw, you've a 1/14 x 1/14 = 1/196 chance with two draws. That's clearly rubbish. It suggests you are less likely to win by entering two draws. But it all makes sense if you read that 'x' as 'AND'. Because multiplying two probabilities together is the same as saying whats the chance of the first AND the second thing both happening - in this case, what's the chance of winning in both the first AND second draws, which if obviously is much smaller that just winning one.

Once you've got AND on board, it's easy enough to see how to use it to work out the chance of winning something in either draw. We just need to work out the chance we won't win in the first AND won't win in the second. Then the remaining chances are where we do win something.

The chance we won't win in the first draw is 13/14. So is the chance we won't win in the second. So the chance we won't win in the first AND the second is 13/14 x 13/14 = 169/196. So the chance we will win something is 1 minus this. 1-169/196 = 27/196.  That's about 0.14 - a 14% probability,  between 1/8 and 1/7. So not quite double the chances, but a lot better than with just one go.

Combining probabilities like this? Simples.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense