Proving a Poss Het...

Suppose you cross a 1.0 visual pied with a 0.1 50% poss het pied, how many hatchlings do you want to see until you say "Nope, she's a normal".

If you put a visual to a het half of the babies should be visual. So if no visuals in the first clutch then she's probable just a normal. But you could give it a second go just to make sure you didn't have the worse odds ever.

Until one of the female 100% hets grows up enough to breed back to the male.

my answer would be: 4.

if it really is a 100% het pied, your chance to miss out on one egg is 50%, for two eggs its 25%, for 3 eggs its 12,5%, and after 4 eggs, at 6,25%, i would write it off.

i mean if its lets say a lesser enchi possible het pied female and you want to breed lesser and enchi into pied you might still repeat the breeding to hit your lesser enchi 100% het pied. So there may be a good reason to continue.

if there isnt one, or if its really just a possible het pied female without other genes, i would stop after 4 eggs.

Also some people can make out het pied markers in possible het pieds and pick the ones that are most likely to be the real het pieds, which already casts more doubt on possible hets than would be the case with, lets say, albino.

Rule of thumb tends to be 3 clutches to prove out hets.
I know people who have 100% guaranteed hets that didn't prove out on the first or second clutch, but did the third. So don't give up if you don't get visuals the first time around. It could just be crappy odds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

Until one of the female 100% hets grows up enough to breed back to the male.

---

Is that a joke or real advice?

That's real advice. I've had possible hets that haven't proven out until their 4th clutch. By that time you should have a female from an earlier clutch old enough to breed back to her father. Yes, according to the 'odds' you should know in the 1st clutch, unfortunatly snakes aren't very good at math. Besides, what else are you going to breed her too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

Until one of the female 100% hets grows up enough to breed back to the male.

---

I...don't...understand??
What would that prove? Absolutely nothing since all of the babies will be 100% hets no matter what...That will prove nothing of the mothers genetics

Unless you're talking about specifically just trying to get pieds. The post was about proving a possible het though....not inbreeding just to get pieds (which really isn't necessary anymore)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

That's real advice. I've had possible hets that haven't proven out until their 4th clutch. By that time you should have a female from an earlier clutch old enough to breed back to her father. Yes, according to the 'odds' you should know in the 1st clutch, unfortunatly snakes aren't very good at math. Besides, what else are you going to breed her too?

---

Very true. But the offspring from the first clutch would all be guaranteed 100% hets since dad is a visual, and it wouldn't necessarily prove mom as a het.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowShredder

I...don't...understand??
What would that prove? Absolutely nothing since all of the babies will be 100% hets no matter what...That will prove nothing of the mothers genetics

---

You beat me to it! Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowShredder

I...don't...understand??
What would that prove? Absolutely nothing since all of the babies will be 100% hets no matter what...That will prove nothing of the mothers genetics

Unless you're talking about specifically just trying to get pieds. The post was about proving a possible het though....not inbreeding just to get pieds (which really isn't necessary anymore)

---

The point is that it's now pointless if the original female is a het or not, as you now have a 100% het female ready to breed.

If the original female doesn't prove out by the time you have a 100% het ready to go why even bother. A generation or two of inbreeding in reptiles doesn't lead to any negative effects 99% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MootWorm

Very true. But the offspring from the first clutch would all be guaranteed 100% hets since dad is a visual, and it wouldn't necessarily prove mom as a het.

---

But that's not the point. You now have a guaranteed 100% het ready to breed. The 50% het is now obsolete, and if the original female hasn't proven out yet chances are it's time to throw in the towel. Sure it's still possible, theoretically a het could never pass on the het gene. it's extremely unlikely but possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Serpent Merchant

But that's not the point. You now have a guaranteed 100% het ready to breed. The 50% het is now obsolete, and if the original female hasn't proven out yet chances are it's time to throw in the towel. Sure it's still possible, theoretically a het could never pass on the het gene. it's extremely unlikely but possible.

---

That's not the point either lol. The point is to prove out the poss het.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MootWorm

That's not the point either lol. The point is to prove out the poss het.

---

Exactly....thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

my answer would be: 4.

if it really is a 100% het pied, your chance to miss out on one egg is 50%, for two eggs its 25%, for 3 eggs its 12,5%, and after 4 eggs, at 6,25%, i would write it off.
i mean if its lets say a lesser enchi possible het pied female and you want to breed lesser and enchi into pied you might still repeat the breeding to hit your lesser enchi 100% het pied. So there may be a good reason to continue.

if there isnt one, or if its really just a possible het pied female without other genes, i would stop after 4 eggs.

Also some people can make out het pied markers in possible het pieds and pick the ones that are most likely to be the real het pieds, which already casts more doubt on possible hets than would be the case with, lets say, albino.

---

ball pythons don't always go by the book. 2 years ago, I breed my clown male to a Mojave female. same odds as hitting on a 100% het to visual. I had 6 good eggs and all 6 hatched. I didn't get any mojaves and everything was just 100% het clowns. I hit the same odds as having all mojaves in that clutch. it happens, I've seen it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MootWorm

That's not the point either lol. The point is to prove out the poss het.

---

But think of it this way. If you breed that 50% female every breeding season until the 100% offspring is ready to breed that's 3-4 clutches. Averaging 5 eggs per clutch that's 15-20 hatchlings. On average 7-10 of those should be visuals. If none of them are, it's time to give up. You now have a 100% ready to go, and you gave the 50% het girl more than enough chances to prove herself.

I understand what you are saying from a theoretical perspective, but we live in the real world... At the end of the day the purpose of proving out a 50% het is to produce visual offspring.

As I said previously It's possible that a het snake never passes on the gene in question, extremely unlikely, but possible. Technically you can't ever 100% prove that a 50% het is a normal. All you can do is look at things reasonably. 3-4 clutches should tell you what you need to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowShredder

I...don't...understand??
What would that prove? Absolutely nothing since all of the babies will be 100% hets no matter what...That will prove nothing of the mothers genetics

Unless you're talking about specifically just trying to get pieds. The post was about proving a possible het though....not inbreeding just to get pieds (which really isn't necessary anymore)

---

My apologies, I was just taking the question to the next logical step. The only reason to breed a pied to a possible het pied is to produce more pieds. And the best way to do that is to use multiple females. I personally like to use females that I've produced myself because then I can be 100% sure of their genetics.

The original question is difficult to answer, the odds really only work out with large numbers. Sure, you might expect to produce half pieds when breeding a homozygous animal to a heterozygous animal, but the small clutch sizes of ball pythons make the numbers statistically insignificant. Actually there is no way to disprove whether or not a snake is actually a het because the odds will never be reduced to zero. There will always be some fraction of a percentage of a possibility no matter how many eggs you produce that hatch normal hatchlings. As Satomi325 said, many breeders will give you a 3 clutch guarantee. However that guarantee still doesn't prove whether or not the snake is actually a het, it just means you can get your money back if you've had really really bad luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Serpent Merchant

But think of it this way. If you breed that 50% female every breeding season until the 100% offspring is ready to breed that's 3-4 clutches. Averaging 5 eggs per clutch that's 15-20 hatchlings. On average 7-10 of those should be visuals. If none of them are, it's time to give up. You now have a 100% ready to go, and you gave the 50% het girl more than enough chances to prove herself.

I understand what you are saying from a theoretical perspective, but we live in the real world... At the end of the day the purpose of proving out a 50% het is to produce visual offspring.

As I said previously It's possible that a het snake never passes on the gene in question, extremely unlikely, but possible. Technically you can't ever 100% prove that a 50% het is a normal. All you can do is look at things reasonably. 3-4 clutches should tell you what you need to know.

---

Oh yeah, I agree 100%. Continuing to breed the poss het until her daughters are up to size would also fulfill the 3 clutches that someone else proposed. I wasn't saying anything about theoretical yield from clutches. I was just saying that breeding daughters back to dad would only prove that dad is a pied lol.

Everyone is going to have different numbers, i would probably write it off as not het after 10 hatchlings, the odds are 1/1024

ok, maybe calling it off after just 4 eggs is a bit radical, but then, i dont see much value in proving out 50% possible hets, given that 100% hets are very cheap and producing a clutch takes much work and effort.

i mean, we are not talking about tri-stripe, atomic or sunglow here, just pied.


Maybe cut off when chances drop below 1%?

all misses:
1 egg: 50%
2 eggs: 25%
3 eggs: 12,5%
4 eggs: 6,25%
5 eggs: 3,125%
6 eggs: 1,56%
7 eggs: 0,78%

so after 7 misses in a row you drop below 1%. After 10 eggs, its below 0,1%, at 0,097%. After 14 eggs, we are below 0,01%. one in ten thousand. After 17 eggs, below 0,001%, remaining chance below one in 100000.

After 20 eggs, its below 1 in 1 million. So if it would be a het, after 20 eggs, it should be proven out and you should get a visual in 999999 cases out of a million cases.


Now you can decide if you want to call it quits when chances drop below 1%, or below 0,1%, or below 0,01%. That would be after 7, or 10, or 14 eggs.

i personally would call it off rather quickly, consider the female a normal, and not breed the piebald to the female, instead i would breed something like a killerbee or a pewter pinstripe to the female and consider her a normal. And raise up the 100% hets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

i mean, we are not talking about tri-stripe, atomic or sunglow here, just pied.

---

LOL actually I was talking about any recessive, just using pied as an example for the numbers game. And the question is academic for me, I don't have any poss hets. I've just read the discussions about proving them out and wondered if there was a standard number of eggs or clutches that people used before saying yeah or nay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

my answer would be: 4.

if it really is a 100% het pied, your chance to miss out on one egg is 50%, for two eggs its 25%, for 3 eggs its 12,5%, and after 4 eggs, at 6,25%, i would write it off.

i mean if its lets say a lesser enchi possible het pied female and you want to breed lesser and enchi into pied you might still repeat the breeding to hit your lesser enchi 100% het pied. So there may be a good reason to continue.

if there isnt one, or if its really just a possible het pied female without other genes, i would stop after 4 eggs.

Also some people can make out het pied markers in possible het pieds and pick the ones that are most likely to be the real het pieds, which already casts more doubt on possible hets than would be the case with, lets say, albino.

---

Your answer of 4 is purely based on mathematical logic sadly if you ever had bred ball pythons you would know that breeding is hardly about math and is hardly textbook.

Yes we all know the mathematical possible outcomes of a clutch, however when breeding there is such a thing as missing odds and sometimes the opposite is true too.

To the OP

Depending on the number of eggs in each of your clutches I would give it 2 to 3 seasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcr229

I've just read the discussions about proving them out and wondered if there was a standard number of eggs or clutches that people used before saying yeah or nay.

---

7 eggs is what I use. At that point, there is one chance in a hundred that the snake is a het. Pretty good odds. See Pythonfriend's post (#20) in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

That's real advice. I've had possible hets that haven't proven out until their 4th clutch. By that time you should have a female from an earlier clutch old enough to breed back to her father. Yes, according to the 'odds' you should know in the 1st clutch, unfortunatly snakes aren't very good at math. Besides, what else are you going to breed her too?

---

Is there no danger in snake in-breeding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recreation

Is there no danger in snake in-breeding?

---

I know it's nothing nearly as bad as say dogs inbreeding or humans inbreeding. Snakes seem to be tens of times more resistant to ill effects of it.
Just for me personally, I would not inbreed unless there is a reason for it. The reasons I would do it is if trying to prove out something genetic or along those lines. But for a morph such as pied....it's no longer necessary. Hets are very affordable and plentiful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recreation

Is there no danger in snake in-breeding?

---

Not really no. Theoretically it's possibly to uncover more undesirable genes but I've never found it to be a problem. Most of the mutations we like so much would be impossible without inbreeding

the thing about mathematical logic is.... it works.


you start with a 50% possible het, get 4 eggs, all 4 are misses. Now its no longer a 50% possible het, its a 6,25% possible het.


When faced with a 6,25% possible het piebald, would you breed a piebald to it? Would you pay more for a 6,25% possible het than you would for a normal female?

I wouldnt want to produce another clutch with a 93.75% chance for total disappointment and only het hatchlings. I would, already at this early point, breed something like a lemonblast male to it, for a clutch with a high chance of getting good stuff, and raise one of the four 100% het pied hatchlings.

of course you can go up to 7 eggs or 10 eggs. But i would strongly recommend against producing 2 or 3 clutches.... after 2 clutches you will likely be above 10 eggs, and then there is only a 1 in 1000 chance left that its a het after all. A third clutch would really be a waste, you would be better off using some multi-gene codominant male for the third clutch.

There is not much to be gained from turning a 0,1% possible het into a 0,001% possible het, and in 999 out of 1000 cases thats all you will get if you already got 10 misses, but continue anyway.


Yes maybe 4 is too early, i would lose patience, others have more patience. But after 10 eggs its pretty much over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

Not really no. Theoretically it's possibly to uncover more undesirable genes but I've never found it to be a problem. Most of the mutations we like so much would be impossible without inbreeding

---

So if i bred a pair of bp's i could breed one offspring back to the parent safely ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recreation

So if i bred a pair of bp's i could breed one offspring back to the parent safely ?

---

Sure, why not? Personally I wouldn't do it without a specific goal in mind, but I've done it many times in the past when I've wanted to see if I could reproduce some quality of one of the parents that I liked and wanted to add to my breeding stock

Murphy likes to mess with me. Admittedly, I breed corn snakes (I'm in this forum because BP genetics fascinate me!), but the odds games of het to visual are the same no matter what the species.

Last year I bred my charcoal to a butter (amel + caramel) to test him for amel. I got 18 eggs in the first clutch, with a fairly even mix of normals and amels, proving the het.

Then I got a single fertile egg out of the butter's second clutch for the year. That egg hatched out a butter. So, 19 eggs and one offspring caramel based when bred to an animal homozygous for caramel. Talk about low odds!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

7 eggs is what I use. At that point, there is one chance in a hundred that the snake is a het. Pretty good odds. See Pythonfriend's post (#20) in this thread.

---

I had a nice 7 egg clutch from a mystic to a normal this year and went 0 for 7 on it...so it's totally possible to strike out still on that many eggs. Crazy odds happen sometimes, that's just how it goes...how far out are the odds of hitting that 400 million dollar lottery right now, but someone is going to do it eventually. I don't know what the number would be for me on proving out a possible het animal, but it would probably be breeding it to a visual until my total number of babies passed 15 and done with a minimum of two clutches/litters.

I've seen 21 eggs from an albino to a pin het albino and not hit on a single albino pin.

I've seen a bumble bee lay 5 eggs and hatch out 5 pastels and not a single one caught the spider gene.

I've seen three eggs from a small pin het hypo bred to a hypo pastel, all three hatched out as hypo pins (one also caught the pastel gene).

Anyone remember how many eggs were there from orange dream x orange dream breedings before the first super was hit on?...I don't remember, but I'm thinking it was a surprisingly high number.

Odds can be crazy sometimes, sometimes they work great for you, other times you've just gotta laugh about how impressively bad they can get to keep yourself from crying.

Just this year, a couple of clutches. Enchi X Normal. 3 eggs, 3 enchis. Albino X het albino. 7 eggs, 1 albino. Another weird one, Lesser X Normal, 6 eggs. 3 lessers, 3 normals, but ALL of them are female. You just never know what you're going to get and 'the odds' in a single clutch really don't mean much at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

the thing about mathematical logic is.... it works.


you start with a 50% possible het, get 4 eggs, all 4 are misses. Now its no longer a 50% possible het, its a 6,25% possible het.


When faced with a 6,25% possible het piebald, would you breed a piebald to it? Would you pay more for a 6,25% possible het than you would for a normal female?

I wouldnt want to produce another clutch with a 93.75% chance for total disappointment and only het hatchlings. I would, already at this early point, breed something like a lemonblast male to it, for a clutch with a high chance of getting good stuff, and raise one of the four 100% het pied hatchlings.

of course you can go up to 7 eggs or 10 eggs. But i would strongly recommend against producing 2 or 3 clutches.... after 2 clutches you will likely be above 10 eggs, and then there is only a 1 in 1000 chance left that its a het after all. A third clutch would really be a waste, you would be better off using some multi-gene codominant male for the third clutch.

There is not much to be gained from turning a 0,1% possible het into a 0,001% possible het, and in 999 out of 1000 cases thats all you will get if you already got 10 misses, but continue anyway.


Yes maybe 4 is too early, i would lose patience, others have more patience. But after 10 eggs its pretty much over.

---

The thing about all of this is that the Poss het is still Poss het until proven to be het. Just because you miss the odds 10000000000000000 times does not reduce the possibility of it being het at all. It just means you had really bad luck. In the past I have had a pastel male to 5 females and hatched exactly 0 pastels. So based off of what you said he could not be a pastel when in fact he was. It is called a 50% Poss het because it has a 50% chance of being het for what ever and a 50% chance of being normal. The standard come back would be that I gave an example of a co-dom and hets are recessive but the odds are still exactly the same no matter what. Pastel x normal by the math is 50% normals and 50% pastels. A pied x het pied is 50% pied and 50% het pied. That means that there are 2 showing the gene and 2 looking normal just like with the pastel.

of course if you breed a possible het there will always be a chance that it is indeed a het, no way around this, its a fact.

But after 20 eggs the chance for this possible het is 1:1048576. Less than one in a million. After 40 eggs its less than one in a million squared, less than one in a trillion.


You cannot compare this to, for example, breeding a bee to a normal and getting only pastels. When you look at the bee, you SEE that it has pastel and spider in it, you KNOW it because you SEE it. It is rational to keep on trying because you know for a fact that the desired result is possible.

With a possible het, you see nothing, you lack one piece of information: You do not know if it is a het or if it is not a het. And statistics is the only way to get more knowledge. If you miss, it is not rational to keep on trying beyond a certain point because you DO NOT know if the desired result is possible, the desired result may be impossible because it is not a het.

a 50% possible het ceases to be a 50% possible het when you try to prove it out. The 50% is based purely on statistics, so any more data that you can feed into the statistics will change that value. Either you prove it out and it jumps up to a 100% proven het, or the percentage goes down. After 7 eggs, all misses, when bred to a visual, you NO LONGER HAVE a 50% possible het, you now have a 1% possible het.

A 50% possible het that failed to prove out does not exist. It is no longer a 50% possible het after that, the statistics change and the chance of it being a het go down based on statistics.

Quote:

---

The thing about all of this is that the Poss het is still Poss het until proven to be het. Just because you miss the odds 10000000000000000 times does not reduce the possibility of it being het at all. It just means you had really bad luck.

---

Not true. The possibility gets cut in half with every egg you hatch out that is not a visual. Any attempt, successful or not, will change the possibility. The initial 50% is based on statistics, and absolutely not immune to further statistical data. and only virgin snakes can be 50% or 66% possible hets. Any breeding erases and replaces that value.

That's absolutely incorrect. The snake is a 50% possible het and will always be a possible het unless it's proven to be 100% het. Adding varying percentages to it are meaningless.

This year I bred fire x normal 6 eggs with six fires 3 males and 3 females

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elduki

This year I bred fire x normal 6 eggs with six fires 3 males and 3 females

---

Wow congrats on those odds!

[QUOTE=Pythonfriend;2120566]
With a possible het, you see nothing, you lack one piece of information: You do not know if it is a het or if it is not a het.
/QUOTE]

Cinny 50% ph pied
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/08/07/enuvusem.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/08/07/evezu2u8.jpg

Would you like to make a bet against her not proving out? ;)

Whether or not pied is recessive is debatable. But according to most it still is, so yes, you can tell with some poss. hets.

I agree that as more eggs hatch out with no visual morph, the chances of proving it out may go down, but that doesn't change it as being labled a 50% poss het to a 1% poss het. I have a feeling we're into the direction now of just discussing semantics and opinion of what to call the animal more than anything else. I do believe that the ethical thing to do (my opinion, what I would do) is if I was selling what was a 50% poss het that I had bred without seeing a visual morph from, would be tell any buyers that it is a 50% poss het that has produced X number of eggs when bred to (visual or het) and has not proved out yet.

I realize that the examples I gave of what I have seen are dealing with visual incomplete dominate genetics so we don't have the "possible" part mixed in, but what it illustrates is that when we start throwing in these percentages, those are just based on theoretical expected possibilities and in real life application often times they do come close I believe if you were able to look at a large sampling size, but things can go a long way off from them also.

As I said before, seven would not be a big enough number for me to count out an animal being a het, somewhere over double that...I've gone 0 for 7 in a clutch, it happens. For anyone else, breed until you feel satisfied and anyone that's trying to prove out a possible het, best of luck to you, it's a great feeling when it happens, it's really an awesome surprise when you prove an animal as being a het that you didn't even buy as a possible het! For anyone that feels they've struck out on proving one out, I hope you have fun and enjoy the ride, hatching out babies is still a lot of fun no matter if they're morphs or normals!

See with a 50% het it means that from the pairing that made it the possibility of it being het is 50% and it is 50% possibility that it is normal. The possibility that it inherited the gene will not go down. Personally if I produced 3 clutches and had not proven it as a het I would call it a normal and if I ever sold it I would sell it as a normal that was sold to me as a poss het with all documentation from the original purchase. I would not charge more for it I would just sell it as a breeder normal. But odds are that I purchased it because 1 I liked the pattern and color and everything about it and 2 it is a poss het. For me I will not get an animal just for genetics. If it is not the look I want in my collection I will not get it.

ok now i get it.


so the 50% possible hets and 66% possible hets, in these cases the percentages are not meant to reflect the actual chance of it being a het.

these percentages are limited to only reflecting the chance of the BP being het based on the breeding that produced them alone.

if thats the case, i think the argument can be resolved.

i calculated and gave examples and advocated percentages that are based on ALL information available, the original pairing as well as all breeding results. When viewed this way, all my percentages are correct. every single egg adds additional information, and i took it into account and applied it to change the label.

and some of you use the labels "50% possible het" and "66% possible het" in a different way, it only takes into account information derived from the genetics of the parents and the pairing. When viewed this way, all of you are right for saying a 50% het stays a 50% het no matter what happens. (unless its proven out, then it goes to 100%, which is a minor inconsistency since in that case breeding results do affect the label).

Anyway, i now understand where this controversy originated. And i learned a bit.

And yes, as long as breeding results (if breedings happened) you can call it however you like. As long as informed people are provided with the data they need to make good decisions its all fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

ok now i get it.


so the 50% possible hets and 66% possible hets, in these cases the percentages are not meant to reflect the actual chance of it being a het.

these percentages are limited to only reflecting the chance of the BP being het based on the breeding that produced them alone.

if thats the case, i think the argument can be resolved.

i calculated and gave examples and advocated percentages that are based on ALL information available, the original pairing as well as all breeding results. When viewed this way, all my percentages are correct. every single egg adds additional information, and i took it into account and applied it to change the label.

and some of you use the labels "50% possible het" and "66% possible het" in a different way, it only takes into account information derived from the genetics of the parents and the pairing. When viewed this way, all of you are right for saying a 50% het stays a 50% het no matter what happens. (unless its proven out, then it goes to 100%, which is a minor inconsistency since in that case breeding results do affect the label).

Anyway, i now understand where this controversy originated. And i learned a bit.

And yes, as long as breeding results (if breedings happened) you can call it however you like. As long as informed people are provided with the data they need to make good decisions its all fine.

---

It IS the chance of them being het. In the clutch, each has a 50 or 66 percent CHANCE of being proven to be het, depending on the breeding.

Sent from my Samsung Note II using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

ok now i get it.


so the 50% possible hets and 66% possible hets, in these cases the percentages are not meant to reflect the actual chance of it being a het.

these percentages are limited to only reflecting the chance of the BP being het based on the breeding that produced them alone.

if thats the case, i think the argument can be resolved.

i calculated and gave examples and advocated percentages that are based on ALL information available, the original pairing as well as all breeding results. When viewed this way, all my percentages are correct. every single egg adds additional information, and i took it into account and applied it to change the label.

and some of you use the labels "50% possible het" and "66% possible het" in a different way, it only takes into account information derived from the genetics of the parents and the pairing. When viewed this way, all of you are right for saying a 50% het stays a 50% het no matter what happens. (unless its proven out, then it goes to 100%, which is a minor inconsistency since in that case breeding results do affect the label).

Anyway, i now understand where this controversy originated. And i learned a bit.

And yes, as long as breeding results (if breedings happened) you can call it however you like. As long as informed people are provided with the data they need to make good decisions its all fine.

---

A snake either carries the gene or not. The problem comes when you breed 2 snakes and the offspring of the 2 include both normals and hets.

-> 100% het means that all offspring in the clutch will be hets. This is only possible when one of the parents is homozygous (visual) for the gene in question.

-> 66% het means that there is a 66% chance that the snake is het, this comes from het x het pairings. This doesn't mean that any of the offspring are actually hets though.

-> 50% het means that there is a 50% chance that each of the offspring are het. This comes from het x normal pairings. Once again this doesn't mean any of the offspring are actually hets.

I have heard of many het snakes that take multiple clutches to prove out. If BP breeding was just a matter of calculations things would be much easier.

thought experiment:


You get a black, intransparent bag, and are being told that there is a 50% chance that two white marbles are inside and a 50% chance that one white and one black marble is inside.

(in this analogy, two white spheres would be a normal, one white and one black sphere would represent a guaranteed het).

Now, the rules are, you only have one way to figure out what is in the bag. You reach in, take out one marble, look at it, put it back in the bag, and give the bag a shake.

You say when i pull out a white sphere 10 times, the chance for there being a black sphere in the bag is still at 50% and will forever stay at 50%. I say the chance for there being a black sphere inside is now at 0,1%.

it depends: do you disregard the information gained from repeatedly getting a look at one of the spheres? This is necessary to keep the value at 50% forever, no matter how often you try, all that data must be ignored. If its taken into account, and all available information is used, none ignored, then the bag, after 10 unsuccessful tries will no longer have a 50% chance of having a black marble inside.


The true chance of there being a black marble inside, after 10 misses in a row, is determined by answering the question: If there is a black sphere inside, what are the chances to miss out 10 times in a row and only see white spheres? AND THAT IS NOT 50%, it just isnt. Yes the bag with the marbles was initially purchased as a "50% possible het for black marble", but that doesnt matter, 50% is not the correct answer to the question, the correct answer is: slightly below 0,1%. or more precise: 0,5^10.

Nah, it'd still be a 50% het lol.

If i buy a 100% het albino and breed it to an albino but hatch all hets, no visual albinos, it doesn't make it less than 100% het just because i didn't produce any visuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

thought experiment:


You get a black, intransparent bag, and are being told that there is a 50% chance that two white marbles are inside and a 50% chance that one white and one black marble is inside.

(in this analogy, two white spheres would be a normal, one white and one black sphere would represent a guaranteed het).

Now, the rules are, you only have one way to figure out what is in the bag. You reach in, take out one marble, look at it, put it back in the bag, and give the bag a shake.

You say when i pull out a white sphere 10 times, the chance for there being a black sphere in the bag is still at 50% and will forever stay at 50%. I say the chance for there being a black sphere inside is now at 0,1%.

it depends: do you disregard the information gained from repeatedly getting a look at one of the spheres? This is necessary to keep the value at 50% forever, no matter how often you try, all that data must be ignored. If its taken into account, and all available information is used, none ignored, then the bag, after 10 unsuccessful tries will no longer have a 50% chance of having a black marble inside.


The true chance of there being a black marble inside, after 10 misses in a row, is determined by answering the question: If there is a black sphere inside, what are the chances to miss out 10 times in a row and only see white spheres? AND THAT IS NOT 50%, it just isnt. Yes the bag with the marbles was initially purchased as a "50% possible het for black marble", but that doesnt matter, 50% is not the correct answer to the question, the correct answer is: slightly below 0,1%. or more precise: 0,5^10.

---

Put one white marble to represent normal,and one black marble the represent het in the bag. Now start pulling!

pythonfriend I understand what you are getting at.

What you are arguing is the chance of it inheriting the gene vs the chance that it actually did inherit the gene. Two different things.

The chance of it inheriting the gene is 50% or 66%. That does not change. This is how people market their animals, and even after breeding trails, the chance of it inheriting the gene is still 50% or 66%.

However with information on breeding trails, you can calculate the chance that it actually has the gene, independent of the previous information. The 50%, 66% doesn't effect this what so ever or even matter much after you have breeding trail info imo. Explanation of this is all over this thread, so nothing more for me to say. but even if after 50 eggs, the chance that it had to inherit the gene was always 50%/66%.

While we may market snakes as 50% or 66%, I think it would be a little dishonest to sell a snake just as a 50%/66% het after seeing it not prove out after eggs. The breeding trail info should be included with the snake. While it would never be wrong that the chance the snake had of inheriting the gene is 50% or 66%, the chance of it having the gene is different with more information.

For everyone using the "it sometimes takes multiple clutches to prove out" this is why there is ALWAYS a chance. No where do we say there is a 0% chance the snake is het, just that chance gets reduced with every egg not proving out. In the end the numbers dont matter, snakes are het or not. but the numbers help us make decisions. The OP was basically asking at what number do you make the decision give up hope on it being het. Your decision has 0% effect on it actually being het or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

...

While we may market snakes as 50% or 66%, I think it would be a little dishonest to sell a snake just as a 50%/66% het after seeing it not prove out after eggs. The breeding trail info should be included with the snake. ...

---

If someone sold a snake as a 50% possible het after it produced 7 normal babies in a test cross, I would consider him more than a little dishonest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

If someone sold a snake as a 50% possible het after it produced 7 normal babies in a test cross, I would consider him more than a little dishonest.

---

Ya. I would have to agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

If someone sold a snake as a 50% possible het after it produced 7 normal babies in a test cross, I would consider him more than a little dishonest.

---

I can see where you are coming from but the animal would still be a poss het. I think it would be best if the seller in that situation were to say x eggs produced with no visuals and charge slightly more than a normal but less than a poss het.... Just my thoughts.