skydivegirl 0 #101 December 24, 2003 QuotePeople who do this for a living compare fatalities per participants IIRC... When I was taking risk assessment we would compare risk by fatalities per # of exposures. Driving was tricky because each exposure would have a different distance or length of time whereas skydiving is fairly consistent per exposure. ^Pink Mafia Sis #26 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tfelber 0 #102 December 24, 2003 The odds are based on each attempt as rehmwa and ianmdrennan have previously mentioned. AND just because you've experienced an abnormality like getting struck by lightening, or winning the lottery, or a malfunction doesn't mean you don't have to worry about it anymore! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 63 #103 December 24, 2003 QuoteAND just because you've experienced an abnormality like getting struck by lightening, or winning the lottery, or a malfunction doesn't mean you don't have to worry about it anymore! Yeah, in my country (Poland) we have a national lottery drawing, with a huge jackpot, every wendesday and every saturday. The chance of hitting a jackopt during a single drawing is 1 in 13 million. Couple years ago one guy hit a jackpot TWICE in THREE weeks. This kind of goes along the lines with my friend having two cutaways on two subsequent jumps in one day (and it was Friday the 13th! ). Someone (who obviously did not understand statistics ) told him not to jump anymore that day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #104 December 24, 2003 QuoteThis kind of goes along the lines with my friend having two cutaways on two subsequent jumps in one day (and it was Friday the 13th! ). Someone (who obviously did not understand statistics ) told him not to jump anymore that day. Well if the gods are trying to tell you something statistics goes out the window "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Liemberg 0 #105 December 24, 2003 Quotewe would compare risk by fatalities per # of exposures. AFAIK comparison of sports and their risks is often done with number of participants in a given year vs. accidents & fatalities. For instance: so many registered members for National Motorcross Association, so many for National Climbers Association (don't know if those organizations exist, but you get the picture) You can count accidents & fatalities at the end of the year. The assumption being that there will be an average Motorcrosser and you don't have to know how long he's training or how many races he joins. Neither do you have to know how many hours the average climber is actually climbing and how high the rock is. There IS an 'average skydiver' even if some of you manage 4 years of skydiving with less than 50 jumps total while others make the same amount in 4 days of training. Often on a national level (Fedstats, National Statistics, etc.) it is known what brought people in the hospital or in the morgue. Of course you would have to correct for participation level in the national organization, f.i. you would expect almost 100% membership where you can't participate legally without it (like hunting in countries where you need a license to hunt) and a lot less where you can (I can swim and I might drown - but I don't have to be a member of the swimmers organization in my country, only when I want to do competition I must become a member.) You could do the 'driving a car comparison' in the same way, since the number of valid drivers licenses will be known and again there will be an average driver steering for so and so many miles on so and so many average trips - and you don't have to know how far and how often your average driver drives. Or you could go for lazy and do a poll here (have you personally known someone who killed himself while driving / parachuting?) My 'score' - from the top of my head - would be: Dead skydivers I have personally known: 5 Dead drivers I have personally known: 0 Bets, anyone? "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #106 December 24, 2003 Quote Dead drivers I have personally known: 0 Bets, anyone? your friends must spend a lot more time jumping out a planes than driving or they are really good drivers. I've known several dead drivers or passengers. Hmm, how many fatalities of tandem passengers have there been? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #107 December 25, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteeven though it's scary as shit, it's still statistically safer than driving! No, it is not. (Common misconception among skydivers though, so there you DO fit in...) hmm, well, it was only a preliminary search, but the data in 1991 show that with skydiving there was 1 fatality for every 65513 jumps, and 6.1 motor vehicle fatalities for every 50000 people (see http://www.afn.org/skydive/sta/stats.html and http://www.hwysafety.org/safety%5Ffacts/fatality_facts/general.htm). Hmm, methinks the stats prove me right. Methinks you are comparing apples to fruitcakes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zach 0 #108 December 25, 2003 So then, I should buy TWO lottery tickets tonight. Thanks guys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Liemberg 0 #109 December 25, 2003 Quoteyour friends must spend a lot more time jumping out a planes than driving or they are really good drivers. I've known several dead drivers or passengers. Ah, but how many skydivers do you know after one tandem jump and lurking DZ.com for a week? As I said it was from the top of my head and indeed most of my skydiving and piloting friends are above average when it comes to safe driving. QuoteHmm, how many fatalities of tandem passengers have there been? Several. Again, I'm to lazy to search the fatalities pages (or make them clicky) but you can take my word for it: not every tandempassenger did survive. We don't write that in the brochure or on the DZ's website... Then again, none of MY passengers died as a consequence of trusting me to save their ass... (Yeah, I know - knock on wood...) "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skylark 0 #110 January 11, 2004 Gosh. I've only just had a look at this again after my last post Imagine you're forced to play Russian roulette with a 25,000 chamber hand gun. There is one bullet in one of the chambers. You're told that you must play at least one game. You're told the chamber will be spun after each pull of the trigger. If you were given the choice, how many times would you play? Just once? Or would you be happy to play 25,000 times? For those of you who would play only once, tell us why. Think about it... "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #111 January 11, 2004 I wouold never be happy to play Russian roulette. No JOY in it, but there is JOY in skydiving making the risks worth it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skylark 0 #112 January 11, 2004 QuoteI wouold never be happy to play Russian roulette. No JOY in it, but there is JOY in skydiving making the risks worth it. Ah, but whether you enjoy skydiving or not won't make a difference. If someone loved playing Russian Roulette, would that make them safer when they played it? No. "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #113 January 11, 2004 Quote Ah, but whether you enjoy skydiving or not won't make a difference. If someone loved playing Russian Roulette, would that make them safer when they played it? No. Ah but that has everything to do with it. If something isn't worth it to you, you don't do it. In a capitalistic society anyway... If sex was not pleasurable, would you have it given all those diseases out there? So, you're right, we wouldn't be likely to play the roulette, but not because this 25000 chamber gun is no more dangerous in terms of odds than a double mal if those are the numbers... But rather we choose not to because the risk (or cost) is not worth the reward (or benefit). Oh shit, economists are falling from the sky! Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skylark 0 #114 January 11, 2004 So you agree with me then? You admit that you're more likely to experience a double mal if you skydive 25,000 times, just like you're more likely to fire onto the chamber containing the bullet if you played Russian Roulette 25,000 times, but you skydive because the risks are worth it? "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites firstime 0 #115 January 11, 2004 this whole thing is a bad comparison. Traffic fatalities occur for a whole bunch a different reasons. Weather,alcohol and a few mechanical failures, oh and stupidity. The booze and stupidity pretty much go hand in hand. So lets eliminate the booze factor from these stats.... now where are we on the list???? Now we are even (with the assumption that we dont get hammered drunk just prior to a skydive). We now have stupidity and mechanical failure. I have seen my share of complete A holes while driving to work, and accidents because of their driving habits. I have also witnessed a guy losing a tire while driving @ 70 mph( does the general public go over emergency procedures prior to driving). My point I am trying to make is that we dont do dirt dives with everyone on the long Island expy prior to going to work,therefore we cant eliminate the A hole from our commute or(group). Now we are at mech failure...... A double mal falls into the catorgory of "fate" and there is no one in these forums that have those stats If we all stay focused, listen and just nudge the envelope just a bit rather than hit it like a pissed off linebacker we then can reduce our (should have thought before I did that) list . We are a smart group of people, we have to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Cornholio 0 #116 January 11, 2004 No dude, you're not getting it. You gave the perfect example of what we are all trying to tell you, but you are looking at it the wrong way. So in your example of the 25K round russian roulette game... It sounds like you believe that after each time the gun does NOT fire, you prevent the gun from hitting that chamber again, thus increasing your odds of hitting the one with a live bullet. But that's not the way it works. After you miss the bullet, you spin the chamber and try again. So your odds stay the same after every time you pull the trigger, or in this case make a skydive. So you could play this russian roulette game for 3 trillion times, and still NEVER hit the live chamber, or it could just be your lucky day and you hit it the first shot, or the 50th or the 10000th or whatever. Butthead: Whoa! Burritos for breakfast! Beavis: Yeah! Yeah! Cool! bellyflier on the dz.com hybrid record jump Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skylark 0 #117 January 11, 2004 So would you: A.) Pull the trigger just once B.) Pull the trigger 1,000 times C.) Pull the tigger 25,000 times Which choice would be more likely to result in you killing yourself? If you had just once chance or if you had 25,000 chances? "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Cornholio 0 #118 January 11, 2004 It doesn't matter. Your chance of killing yourself would be the same. If you pulled it once, you still have 1 in 25,000 to hit it. If you pulled it 25,000 times, for every time, you would still have 1 in 25,000 to hit it. Your odds stay the same, so it doesn't matter. Butthead: Whoa! Burritos for breakfast! Beavis: Yeah! Yeah! Cool! bellyflier on the dz.com hybrid record jump Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skylark 0 #119 January 11, 2004 So are you really saying that, given the choice, most people would carry on pulling the trigger thousands of times if they managed to survive the first attempt, because the chances of them killing themselves wouldn't be any greater? "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Cornholio 0 #120 January 11, 2004 Bingo! We have a winner! Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to say. Butthead: Whoa! Burritos for breakfast! Beavis: Yeah! Yeah! Cool! bellyflier on the dz.com hybrid record jump Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skylark 0 #121 January 11, 2004 Then the law of averages would dictate that, if the gun was 'fair', that there 'should' be a bullet in the chamber you fire upon, once every 25,000 times. You would give yourself far more of a chance of striking unlucky if you pulled the trigger 25,000 times than if you pulled it just the once, otherwise the gun wouldn't be 'fair'. "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Push 0 #122 January 11, 2004 You do not buy skydiving gear that is guaranteed to fail within 25,000 jumps. When you insert a bullet in a 25,000 chambered gun, you are guaranteed one live fire in those 25,000 shots. If you spin the barrel before every attempt, you are in the same scenario I described in my previous post in this thread. Read it carefully, it should make everything clear. You do not have a probability of 1 of dying in the next 25,000 jumps. You do have a probability of 1 of dying in your next 25,000 shots from that gun. These are not the same processes, you cannot compare them! I am a student of pure mathematics, and I do research in mathematics. Go to my previous post in this thread, it should make it clear. If you still don't understand, the fallacy you are stuck on is called Gambler's Fallacy, and you should be able to find further explanations in any good book on introductory statistics. Trust me, you are wrong! Don't try to convince people that you're right, try to understand why you're wrong. Understand that (24,999/25,000)^25,000 is the probability of you dying in your next 25,000 jumps. When I make one jump, this probability now describes the chance of me dying in my next 25,000 jumps, that is, dying by jump 25,001. Another thing. Stop talking about the law of averages, you are confusing yourself. The law of averages says what happens in a group. You are talking about individuals. The law of averages says absolutely nothing about individuals. If you find yourself using the law of averages to explain anything about this fallacy, you are confused! -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skylark 0 #123 January 11, 2004 I can see you're unable to grasp the mathematics being used here because you're talking about gear quality. If there is a probability that something will happen, that probability is calculated taking into account all other factors. Let me explain by getting you to answer the question. If you were forced to play Russian Roulette once, with a 25,000 barrel handgun, but were also given the choice of playing it 25,000 times (assuming the barrel was re-spun), which would you choose? If what you are saying is correct, that the probability of being 'unlucky' is 25,000 to 1 on the first attempt and also 25,000 to 1 on the 25,000 attempt, then presumably you wouldn't have a problem with playing it 25,000 times because, according to you the odds are exactly the same. But nobody would risk playing it again if they didn't have to, if they survived the first trigger pull. The reason being that, despite the barrel being re-spun, they are increasing their chances of striking unlucky by continuing to play. I can use the law of averages since the 'group' in question is the aggregate of skydives recorded used to calculate the odds of experiencing a double malfunction. "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Eiley 0 #124 January 11, 2004 I'm no mathematician, but I think you are now asking a different question than that with which you started the thread. I'm going to change the concept of dying whilst skydiving (or playing Russian Roulette) to the concept of breaking an ankle whilst skydiving. Let's say the chance of breaking the ankle is 1 in 500 on any one jump. What you are asking now is: - What is my chance of breaking my ankle once if I jump 1 time? - What is my chance of breaking my ankle once if I jump 25,000 times? I would wager that a person who has done 25,000 jumps is more likely to have broken an ankle at some stage than a person who has done only one jump, simply because they are giving themselves more opportunities to hit that one chance in 500. However, The question that opened the thread was: - What is my chance of breaking my ankle on jump number 1? - What is my chance of breaking my ankle on jump number 25,001 if I haven't broken it before that? inter alia, The chance is equal for both: a 1-in-500 chance. I have no idea why I have entered this debate. But that's just my layperson understanding of the whole thing. Cheers, Eiley nothing to see here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,990 #125 January 11, 2004 >You do not have a probability of 1 of dying in the next 25,000 > jumps. You do have a probability of 1 of dying in your next 25,000 > shots from that gun. These are not the same processes, you cannot > compare them! Actually he's using a pretty good example. Russian roulette with a 25,000 chamber revolver (spinning it each time) is an example of a random process, with a 1 in 25,000 chance of death on each use. Skydiving is similar. Odds never get to 1 in either case (unless you forget to "randomize" the gun after each attempt) but as you make significantly more jumps/games of russian roulette _over_ 25,000, the odds approach unity. The one place that it doesn't hold is that previous results do not affect future results with the revolver; previous experience with skydiving DOES affect your odds of a future fatality. Thus a 4-way guy who is current and makes 600 jumps a year (and jumps a reasonable canopy etc) is less likely _per_jump_ to die than an uncurrent jumper who makes a few jumps a year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
newsstand 0 #104 December 24, 2003 QuoteThis kind of goes along the lines with my friend having two cutaways on two subsequent jumps in one day (and it was Friday the 13th! ). Someone (who obviously did not understand statistics ) told him not to jump anymore that day. Well if the gods are trying to tell you something statistics goes out the window "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #105 December 24, 2003 Quotewe would compare risk by fatalities per # of exposures. AFAIK comparison of sports and their risks is often done with number of participants in a given year vs. accidents & fatalities. For instance: so many registered members for National Motorcross Association, so many for National Climbers Association (don't know if those organizations exist, but you get the picture) You can count accidents & fatalities at the end of the year. The assumption being that there will be an average Motorcrosser and you don't have to know how long he's training or how many races he joins. Neither do you have to know how many hours the average climber is actually climbing and how high the rock is. There IS an 'average skydiver' even if some of you manage 4 years of skydiving with less than 50 jumps total while others make the same amount in 4 days of training. Often on a national level (Fedstats, National Statistics, etc.) it is known what brought people in the hospital or in the morgue. Of course you would have to correct for participation level in the national organization, f.i. you would expect almost 100% membership where you can't participate legally without it (like hunting in countries where you need a license to hunt) and a lot less where you can (I can swim and I might drown - but I don't have to be a member of the swimmers organization in my country, only when I want to do competition I must become a member.) You could do the 'driving a car comparison' in the same way, since the number of valid drivers licenses will be known and again there will be an average driver steering for so and so many miles on so and so many average trips - and you don't have to know how far and how often your average driver drives. Or you could go for lazy and do a poll here (have you personally known someone who killed himself while driving / parachuting?) My 'score' - from the top of my head - would be: Dead skydivers I have personally known: 5 Dead drivers I have personally known: 0 Bets, anyone? "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #106 December 24, 2003 Quote Dead drivers I have personally known: 0 Bets, anyone? your friends must spend a lot more time jumping out a planes than driving or they are really good drivers. I've known several dead drivers or passengers. Hmm, how many fatalities of tandem passengers have there been? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #107 December 25, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteeven though it's scary as shit, it's still statistically safer than driving! No, it is not. (Common misconception among skydivers though, so there you DO fit in...) hmm, well, it was only a preliminary search, but the data in 1991 show that with skydiving there was 1 fatality for every 65513 jumps, and 6.1 motor vehicle fatalities for every 50000 people (see http://www.afn.org/skydive/sta/stats.html and http://www.hwysafety.org/safety%5Ffacts/fatality_facts/general.htm). Hmm, methinks the stats prove me right. Methinks you are comparing apples to fruitcakes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zach 0 #108 December 25, 2003 So then, I should buy TWO lottery tickets tonight. Thanks guys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #109 December 25, 2003 Quoteyour friends must spend a lot more time jumping out a planes than driving or they are really good drivers. I've known several dead drivers or passengers. Ah, but how many skydivers do you know after one tandem jump and lurking DZ.com for a week? As I said it was from the top of my head and indeed most of my skydiving and piloting friends are above average when it comes to safe driving. QuoteHmm, how many fatalities of tandem passengers have there been? Several. Again, I'm to lazy to search the fatalities pages (or make them clicky) but you can take my word for it: not every tandempassenger did survive. We don't write that in the brochure or on the DZ's website... Then again, none of MY passengers died as a consequence of trusting me to save their ass... (Yeah, I know - knock on wood...) "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skylark 0 #110 January 11, 2004 Gosh. I've only just had a look at this again after my last post Imagine you're forced to play Russian roulette with a 25,000 chamber hand gun. There is one bullet in one of the chambers. You're told that you must play at least one game. You're told the chamber will be spun after each pull of the trigger. If you were given the choice, how many times would you play? Just once? Or would you be happy to play 25,000 times? For those of you who would play only once, tell us why. Think about it... "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #111 January 11, 2004 I wouold never be happy to play Russian roulette. No JOY in it, but there is JOY in skydiving making the risks worth it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skylark 0 #112 January 11, 2004 QuoteI wouold never be happy to play Russian roulette. No JOY in it, but there is JOY in skydiving making the risks worth it. Ah, but whether you enjoy skydiving or not won't make a difference. If someone loved playing Russian Roulette, would that make them safer when they played it? No. "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #113 January 11, 2004 Quote Ah, but whether you enjoy skydiving or not won't make a difference. If someone loved playing Russian Roulette, would that make them safer when they played it? No. Ah but that has everything to do with it. If something isn't worth it to you, you don't do it. In a capitalistic society anyway... If sex was not pleasurable, would you have it given all those diseases out there? So, you're right, we wouldn't be likely to play the roulette, but not because this 25000 chamber gun is no more dangerous in terms of odds than a double mal if those are the numbers... But rather we choose not to because the risk (or cost) is not worth the reward (or benefit). Oh shit, economists are falling from the sky! Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skylark 0 #114 January 11, 2004 So you agree with me then? You admit that you're more likely to experience a double mal if you skydive 25,000 times, just like you're more likely to fire onto the chamber containing the bullet if you played Russian Roulette 25,000 times, but you skydive because the risks are worth it? "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firstime 0 #115 January 11, 2004 this whole thing is a bad comparison. Traffic fatalities occur for a whole bunch a different reasons. Weather,alcohol and a few mechanical failures, oh and stupidity. The booze and stupidity pretty much go hand in hand. So lets eliminate the booze factor from these stats.... now where are we on the list???? Now we are even (with the assumption that we dont get hammered drunk just prior to a skydive). We now have stupidity and mechanical failure. I have seen my share of complete A holes while driving to work, and accidents because of their driving habits. I have also witnessed a guy losing a tire while driving @ 70 mph( does the general public go over emergency procedures prior to driving). My point I am trying to make is that we dont do dirt dives with everyone on the long Island expy prior to going to work,therefore we cant eliminate the A hole from our commute or(group). Now we are at mech failure...... A double mal falls into the catorgory of "fate" and there is no one in these forums that have those stats If we all stay focused, listen and just nudge the envelope just a bit rather than hit it like a pissed off linebacker we then can reduce our (should have thought before I did that) list . We are a smart group of people, we have to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cornholio 0 #116 January 11, 2004 No dude, you're not getting it. You gave the perfect example of what we are all trying to tell you, but you are looking at it the wrong way. So in your example of the 25K round russian roulette game... It sounds like you believe that after each time the gun does NOT fire, you prevent the gun from hitting that chamber again, thus increasing your odds of hitting the one with a live bullet. But that's not the way it works. After you miss the bullet, you spin the chamber and try again. So your odds stay the same after every time you pull the trigger, or in this case make a skydive. So you could play this russian roulette game for 3 trillion times, and still NEVER hit the live chamber, or it could just be your lucky day and you hit it the first shot, or the 50th or the 10000th or whatever. Butthead: Whoa! Burritos for breakfast! Beavis: Yeah! Yeah! Cool! bellyflier on the dz.com hybrid record jump Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skylark 0 #117 January 11, 2004 So would you: A.) Pull the trigger just once B.) Pull the trigger 1,000 times C.) Pull the tigger 25,000 times Which choice would be more likely to result in you killing yourself? If you had just once chance or if you had 25,000 chances? "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cornholio 0 #118 January 11, 2004 It doesn't matter. Your chance of killing yourself would be the same. If you pulled it once, you still have 1 in 25,000 to hit it. If you pulled it 25,000 times, for every time, you would still have 1 in 25,000 to hit it. Your odds stay the same, so it doesn't matter. Butthead: Whoa! Burritos for breakfast! Beavis: Yeah! Yeah! Cool! bellyflier on the dz.com hybrid record jump Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skylark 0 #119 January 11, 2004 So are you really saying that, given the choice, most people would carry on pulling the trigger thousands of times if they managed to survive the first attempt, because the chances of them killing themselves wouldn't be any greater? "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cornholio 0 #120 January 11, 2004 Bingo! We have a winner! Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to say. Butthead: Whoa! Burritos for breakfast! Beavis: Yeah! Yeah! Cool! bellyflier on the dz.com hybrid record jump Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skylark 0 #121 January 11, 2004 Then the law of averages would dictate that, if the gun was 'fair', that there 'should' be a bullet in the chamber you fire upon, once every 25,000 times. You would give yourself far more of a chance of striking unlucky if you pulled the trigger 25,000 times than if you pulled it just the once, otherwise the gun wouldn't be 'fair'. "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #122 January 11, 2004 You do not buy skydiving gear that is guaranteed to fail within 25,000 jumps. When you insert a bullet in a 25,000 chambered gun, you are guaranteed one live fire in those 25,000 shots. If you spin the barrel before every attempt, you are in the same scenario I described in my previous post in this thread. Read it carefully, it should make everything clear. You do not have a probability of 1 of dying in the next 25,000 jumps. You do have a probability of 1 of dying in your next 25,000 shots from that gun. These are not the same processes, you cannot compare them! I am a student of pure mathematics, and I do research in mathematics. Go to my previous post in this thread, it should make it clear. If you still don't understand, the fallacy you are stuck on is called Gambler's Fallacy, and you should be able to find further explanations in any good book on introductory statistics. Trust me, you are wrong! Don't try to convince people that you're right, try to understand why you're wrong. Understand that (24,999/25,000)^25,000 is the probability of you dying in your next 25,000 jumps. When I make one jump, this probability now describes the chance of me dying in my next 25,000 jumps, that is, dying by jump 25,001. Another thing. Stop talking about the law of averages, you are confusing yourself. The law of averages says what happens in a group. You are talking about individuals. The law of averages says absolutely nothing about individuals. If you find yourself using the law of averages to explain anything about this fallacy, you are confused! -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skylark 0 #123 January 11, 2004 I can see you're unable to grasp the mathematics being used here because you're talking about gear quality. If there is a probability that something will happen, that probability is calculated taking into account all other factors. Let me explain by getting you to answer the question. If you were forced to play Russian Roulette once, with a 25,000 barrel handgun, but were also given the choice of playing it 25,000 times (assuming the barrel was re-spun), which would you choose? If what you are saying is correct, that the probability of being 'unlucky' is 25,000 to 1 on the first attempt and also 25,000 to 1 on the 25,000 attempt, then presumably you wouldn't have a problem with playing it 25,000 times because, according to you the odds are exactly the same. But nobody would risk playing it again if they didn't have to, if they survived the first trigger pull. The reason being that, despite the barrel being re-spun, they are increasing their chances of striking unlucky by continuing to play. I can use the law of averages since the 'group' in question is the aggregate of skydives recorded used to calculate the odds of experiencing a double malfunction. "Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eiley 0 #124 January 11, 2004 I'm no mathematician, but I think you are now asking a different question than that with which you started the thread. I'm going to change the concept of dying whilst skydiving (or playing Russian Roulette) to the concept of breaking an ankle whilst skydiving. Let's say the chance of breaking the ankle is 1 in 500 on any one jump. What you are asking now is: - What is my chance of breaking my ankle once if I jump 1 time? - What is my chance of breaking my ankle once if I jump 25,000 times? I would wager that a person who has done 25,000 jumps is more likely to have broken an ankle at some stage than a person who has done only one jump, simply because they are giving themselves more opportunities to hit that one chance in 500. However, The question that opened the thread was: - What is my chance of breaking my ankle on jump number 1? - What is my chance of breaking my ankle on jump number 25,001 if I haven't broken it before that? inter alia, The chance is equal for both: a 1-in-500 chance. I have no idea why I have entered this debate. But that's just my layperson understanding of the whole thing. Cheers, Eiley nothing to see here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #125 January 11, 2004 >You do not have a probability of 1 of dying in the next 25,000 > jumps. You do have a probability of 1 of dying in your next 25,000 > shots from that gun. These are not the same processes, you cannot > compare them! Actually he's using a pretty good example. Russian roulette with a 25,000 chamber revolver (spinning it each time) is an example of a random process, with a 1 in 25,000 chance of death on each use. Skydiving is similar. Odds never get to 1 in either case (unless you forget to "randomize" the gun after each attempt) but as you make significantly more jumps/games of russian roulette _over_ 25,000, the odds approach unity. The one place that it doesn't hold is that previous results do not affect future results with the revolver; previous experience with skydiving DOES affect your odds of a future fatality. Thus a 4-way guy who is current and makes 600 jumps a year (and jumps a reasonable canopy etc) is less likely _per_jump_ to die than an uncurrent jumper who makes a few jumps a year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
