Mojave + Mojave = Blue eyed Lucy?

In the genetic wizard it says I have a 25% chance to get a Blue Eyed Lucy, Is this a per egg or per clutch chance?

Would it be worth me getting a second Mojave and chancing it?

Also what are some other cool morphs I could get out of the Male Mojave I have now?

Thinking of getting into breeding, DAMN YOU SNAKE BYTES! :P

Thanks! :D

Yes that's right but mojave x mojave BELs are the "dirtiest" of all the BEL pairings. They tend to still have some pattern, and they have a grey head. Not sure if ALL BELs from mojo x mojo have the grey head or not.

I prefer lesser x mojo BELs. Of you're thinking of adding another snake, get a lesser female for your mojo male

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/19/qy5enage.jpg

Yes 25% per egg. I think personally I would go with a lesser. The lesser mojo tend to produce whiter animals and the other hatchlings having a mix mojo and lessers are likely easier to sell later on.

25% chance per egg.

There are a ton of combos that look good with mojo, just make what you like!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SquamishSerpents

Yes that's right but mojave x mojave BELs are the "dirtiest" of all the BEL pairings. They tend to still have some pattern, and they have a grey head. Not sure if ALL BELs from mojo x mojo have the grey head or not.

I prefer lesser x mojo BELs. Of you're thinking of adding another snake, get a lesser female for your mojo male

---

What kind of lesser should I get?

Thanks!

It is as the others have stated, 25% chance per egg for a BEL. However, I for one do not mind the "dirty" look of the mojo x mojo BEL. If I want an all white snake, I'll wait for my pastel ybs to mature and try my luck with an ivory, or if I'm lucky, a super pastel ivory. Mojos can also be bred with pins to produce jigsaws, pastels to get pastaves, cinnamons to get savannahs and spiders to get mojave spiders to name a few. Up to you in the end, but plenty of possibilities!

From what I understand ivorys are "dirty" too and most have a yellow stripe?

Dirty or not, they are still very nice looking super forms of the YB. I've seen some very clean ivory bps floating around the net myself.

I have a 0.1 Butter that will likely be ready next fall. I had planned for her to see my 1.0 Lessser, but I think my 1.0 Mojave is gettng the nod for duty :gj:

I agree with PghBall. I like the "dirty" look to the Super Mojos, solid white snakes get boring real quick, also you can never have too many supers.

Same here i like super mojo's i think the grey head gives em a little more character.

I happen to prefer the super Mojaves. The other BELs are cool, but there is just something about the lavender/grey head that I like. Plus, if you have a super Mojave and pair that with a Mystic or a Phantom, you can guarantee that you get Mystic Potions or Purple Passions, much more interesting (in my opinion) than the Mystic(or Phantom)/Lesser (or Butter) combinations. But it is a matter of personal taste. This year I hatched out 1.0 Jigsaw Blast (Mojave/Pinstripe/Pastel) and 0.2 Jigsaws (Mojave/Pinstripe) and was really pleased with them. There is a whole lot of really cool things you can pair the Mojave to, look at the Mojave/Yellowbelly, the Mojave/Sabel, and the Savannah (Mojave/Cinnamon) to name a few.

Super Mojave it is! :) I like the grey head too now that I look at it, adds personality :P

Wow I'm surprised by all the love for mojo x mojos!

While I do think they are cute, I prefer the absolute cleanliness of an all white snake, especially with those striking blue eyes. I guess I'm the odd one out! We have 3 BEL pairings happening this year though, so I may end up with a mojo x mojo BEL, but our mojo girl has many boyfriends this year, so we'll see!

Get a female mystic and go for potions!

Can't wait to produce a super Mojave and super Mystic. This project is gonna be the death of me. I want it so bad and Mystics are so expensive. Someday I'll have that 100% clutch of Mystic Potions and it'll all be worth it.

Its per egg but if you do the math it turns out the same percent chance per clutch.

It makes me laugh when i see people arguing over "per egg or per clutch.

It's not the same at all...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also prefer the super Mojo. This way you know that every baby will be Mojo. We also are doing a lot of breeding in the mojo, mystic, potions area so super mojo is super helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SquamishSerpents

It's not the same at all...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

How is it not?
Example:
flipping a coin presents 2 posssible outcomes (or in our case 4 morph combos)
You flip a coin once (1egg) and the chance is 50% (or in our case 25%) chance of either outcome.

Flip it x amount of times (or x amount of eggs) and tally all the results and the ratio idealistically will still be 50:50.

The chance would only change if for some reason a number of eggs were prohibited from making a certain morph,thus lopsiding the ratio.

You can use a die the same way for 6 possible outcomes. Each roll has 1:6 chance of any outcome. Tally all the rolls and the number should still resemble 1:6. Of course this is never garunteed in the real world but the possibilities are consistant

I'm just going to throw my two cents in here for whatever it's worth. Love super mojo's they look better to me as they age than they do as babies. No for the odd's it is per egg, why is it per egg and not the total clutch because if it's 1:4 then out of 4 eggs you should get at least one right, but I've seen clutches of 8 eggs only yeild 1 morph with a 50:50 odds then I've seen clutches of 4 with 1:4 chances get all 1:4 combo's. So for me the size of the clutch doesn't alter the odds it just gives you more chances or less to hit the odds.

The odds are per egg. If there is only 1 egg does that mean we will have no chance at hitting a BEL? No- it means we have a 1:4 odds of hitting a BEL on that egg. If we have 100 eggs it still means we only have a 1:4 odds at each egg. Sure, you can say you're odd's are 25/100, but what it really breaks down to is that there is 1:4 odd's per egg no matter how you crack them.

What's the odd's you'll get a female out of any egg for any clutch? 1:2... if your first egg is a female, what are the odds your 2nd egg will be a female? 3rd egg and so on.... the odd's are per egg. The more egg's you get, the higher your chances of hitting any desired (or undesired) morph.

Odd's and chances at the odd's are quite different. If you hold one lottery ticket with 1:1,000,000 odds you probably wasted $1, but if you hold 500,000 tickets your chances are much better. The odd's are still 1:1,000,000 per ticket.

The sperm do not all line up and decide who's jumping in each egg to make the odd's right for the entire clutch.

All of your odds are per egg.

I prefer the MojoxMojo Bell look personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coreydelong

The odds are per egg. If there is only 1 egg does that mean we will have no chance at hitting a BEL? No- it means we have a 1:4 odds of hitting a BEL on that egg. If we have 100 eggs it still means we only have a 1:4 odds at each egg. Sure, you can say you're odd's are 25/100, but what it really breaks down to is that there is 1:4 odd's per egg no matter how you crack them.

What's the odd's you'll get a female out of any egg for any clutch? 1:2... if your first egg is a female, what are the odds your 2nd egg will be a female? 3rd egg and so on.... the odd's are per egg. The more egg's you get, the higher your chances of hitting any desired (or undesired) morph.

Odd's and chances at the odd's are quite different. If you hold one lottery ticket with 1:1,000,000 odds you probably wasted $1, but if you hold 500,000 tickets your chances are much better. The odd's are still 1:1,000,000 per ticket.

The sperm do not all line up and decide who's jumping in each egg to make the odd's right for the entire clutch.

---

If you do the math at the end of the day 1:4 per egg still translates to 1:4 for the clutch. Not saying you cant beat the odds and get all bels. You can just as well get no bels.
were arguing the same point. Not saying your wrong by claiming its per egg but you are mistaken if you claim its not also per clutch. Statistically out of 100 eggs, 25 will be bels (in the ideal perfect world). Open 4 eggs and statistically it will be 1 bel. Open 1 egg (which can represent a 1 egg clutch) and its still 25% @ a bel.

Now your argument about consecutive females is different. The odd will be deifferent if you expect to get multiple females consecutively. But out of the whole clutch the odds will still be 50:50 (as well as per egg). After 1 female emerging,your odds of getting a second consecutive female (in a row) drops. This will not magically change what is in the next egg but playing your odds will show you that the probability of a second female is lower than before you opened the first egg. After 2 females you have to be pretty lucky to hit a third consecutive because the odds multiply (i beleive exponentially but i may be mistaken). In the end the odds should still balance out to about 50:50 male/female for the entire clutch.

In the end the argument is moot. It works both ways (perclutch/per egg)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izzys Keeper

If you do the math at the end of the day 1:4 per egg still translates to 1:4 for the clutch. Not saying you cant beat the odds and get all bels. You can just as well get no bels.
were arguing the same point. Not saying your wrong by claiming its per egg but you are mistaken if you claim its not also per clutch. Statistically out of 100 eggs, 25 will be bels (in the ideal perfect world). Open 4 eggs and statistically it will be 1 bel. Open 1 egg (which can represent a 1 egg clutch) and its still 25% @ a bel.

Now your argument about consecutive females is different. The odd will be deifferent if you expect to get multiple females consecutively. But out of the whole clutch the odds will still be 50:50 (as well as per egg). After 1 female emerging,your odds of getting a second consecutive female (in a row) drops. This will not magically change what is in the next egg but playing your odds will show you that the probability of a second female is lower than before you opened the first egg. After 2 females you have to be pretty lucky to hit a third consecutive because the odds multiply (i beleive exponentially but i may be mistaken). In the end the odds should still balance out to about 50:50 male/female for the entire clutch.

In the end the argument is moot. It works both ways (perclutch/per egg)

---

Not so, but believe what you want. The odd's of hitting a female on the 1st egg is 1:2, 2nd egg is still 1:2... 3rd egg is still 1:2. The odds do not multiply exponentially as you go as it is per each individual egg. You can extrapolate it for the clutch if you wish for simplicity, but it is per egg and they are not the same. You contradict yourself by saying the odds change after you hit one female.... not so. The odd's are still 1:2 per egg- PERIOD.

Xx times Yy has 4 possible outcomes per egg. Draw a Punnett Square. After the 1st egg is sexed look at the Punnet square. Did it change? Nope.... that's cause it's per egg. If you have one child and it is a boy that does not decrease your chances of having a boy on your next child.

We're not talking statistics about flipping coins and rolling dice. We're talking genetic odd's on any given single egg. Each egg has it's own odd's. The previous egg has no bearing on the odds of the next egg.

[QUOTE=coreydelong;1965068]Not so, but believe what you want. The odd's of hitting a female on the 1st egg is 1:2, 2nd egg is still 1:2... 3rd egg is still 1:2. The odds do not multiply exponentially as you go as it is per each individual egg. You can extrapolate it for the clutch if you wish for simplicity, but it is per egg and they are not the same. You contradict yourself by saying the odds change after you hit one female.... not so. The odd's are still 1:2 per egg- PERIOD.

The only reason i mentioned this is because you brought it up. I understand the odds of each egg do not change. But you brought up hitting consecutive females in a series of eggs. The analogy between flipping coins and female:male is valid. As i said it doesnt magically change what is in the egg but it does change your ODDS. THE odds of getting 1 female from 1 egg is better than getting 4 females in a row from 4 eggs. Not saying those eggs all of a sudden have different snakes in them.

If the snake somehow laid 100 eggs would you agree that the amount of bels from the entire clutch idealistically should be 25?

Now would you agree that if you opened the 100 eggs one by one and the first 10 were bels, the odds of hitting an 11th or 12th CONSECUTIVE bel out of those expected 25 would get slimmer and slimmer in relation to the results of the entire clutch?

The odds of continuing to hit the same result CONSECUTIVELY get worse as you continue to get that result.

1:4 is 1:4 reguardless if you have a 1 egg sample size or a 100 egg sample size.

But that 1:4 is skewed if you expect to hit the same result consecutively (or one after another)

We can aggree to disagree. It is per egg and that is what a Punnett Square represents. People do extrapolate it out, but it is incorrect to do so.

A Punnett Square is what genetic odds are calculated from. That square and its associated odds do not change from one egg to the next. The odds are the same for each egg.... 1:4. If I hit 99 straight BEL's my odds are still 1:4 (no more, no less) the last egg will be a BEL. Genetic odds are not based on what the last egg produced. Prove to me the Punnett Squre changes for one egg given the last outcome? The Punnett Square sits there on the wall and cares not what the last child/egg was.

Would you tell parents that have a Sickle Cell child that their odds are any different that their 2nd child may have Sickle Cell? That Punnett Square does not care if the last child had Sickle Cell......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coreydelong

We're not talking statistics about flipping coins and rolling dice. We're talking genetic odd's on any given single egg. Each egg has it's own odd's. The previous egg has no bearing on the odds of the next egg.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slashlax99

I happen to prefer the super Mojaves. The other BELs are cool, but there is just something about the lavender/grey head that I like. Plus, if you have a super Mojave and pair that with a Mystic or a Phantom, you can guarantee that you get Mystic Potions or Purple Passions, much more interesting (in my opinion) than the Mystic(or Phantom)/Lesser (or Butter) combinations. But it is a matter of personal taste. This year I hatched out 1.0 Jigsaw Blast (Mojave/Pinstripe/Pastel) and 0.2 Jigsaws (Mojave/Pinstripe) and was really pleased with them. There is a whole lot of really cool things you can pair the Mojave to, look at the Mojave/Yellowbelly, the Mojave/Sabel, and the Savannah (Mojave/Cinnamon) to name a few.

---

there is no guarantee with that breeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombie

Get a female mystic and go for potions!

---

if I had a female mystic or phantom up to breeding size, I wouldn't waste her on a male mojave. not when a super phantom/ mystic are going for 5500 and you can pick up a mystic/ phantom male for around 500 to breed to her.



I produced 2 mojave x lesser bels and a mojave x mojave bel last year. I like both the very clean look and also the super mojave look. I still have the super mojave, it's a very strong genetic snake to have in a collection.

BEL's were what got me jump started into breeding. I picked up a 1.0 Lesser who is now breeding to a few of my various females..... Spider and Pinstripe.

I picked up a 0.1 Butter for him initially last year, then a 0.1 Mojave this year. The 0.1 Butter should be ready next fall and the 0.1 Mojave the following year.

Undecided on exactly what morphs I would use for my BEL's I also picked up a 1.0 Mojave, so I have several possibilities on how I want to go about producing some BEL's.

Mojave x Mojave

Mojave x Butter

Lesser x Butter

Lesser x Mojave

I made a thread about this a while ago, but one thing I find people want to compare apples to oranges in the per clutch, per egg debate. Also you need to watch how you word what you say and most of what we say is incomplete anyway so it is left up to interpretation of what is meant. I mean saying *insert punnet square results* is per clutch is very incomplete and can be interpreted different ways. I used a more simple example with just a 4 egg lesser normal pairing....

Say I have a 4 egg clutch
L = Lesser
N = Normal

0 Lesser - 1 way
NNNN

1 Lesser - 4 ways
LNNN
NLNN
NNLN
NNNL

2 Lesser - 6 ways (the 50/50...)
LLNN
LNLN
LNNL
NLLN
NLNL
NNLL

3 Lesser - 4 ways
LLLN
LLNL
LNLL
NLLL

4 Lesser - 1 way
LLLL

To everyone saying one egg doesn't effect the outcome of the next egg, you have gone out of the clutch aspect (apples) and now into individual eggs (oranges). Just take the clutch as a whole and leave it that way (now we are comparing apples to apples). Now what is the most likely outcome? it is going to be that punnett square for the clutch. That does not in anyway change that anything can happen, as shown above. If you know the clutch size, you can go farther and say chances are X I will get Y. Like in my above example your chances at getting 0 or 4 lessers is 6%, 1 or 3 lessers is 25% and 2 lessers is 38%. but we don't know the clutch size most of the time. Is it wrong to say per clutch in most cases? It would be depending on the wording, which most of the time is incomplete. Per clutch however is a more complicated aspect than per egg. As shown it is not as simple as punnett square results, but the punnett square results are the most likely outcomes, which is what I believe most people are getting at anyways, again all interpretation. So why do we debate this again?

Honestly I think it becomes an English debate rather than anything science or math related.

I'm talking on a per egg basis- apples to apples. No English debate- just pure genetics.

You cannot deny that EVERY egg has 1:4 odds of being a BEL independant of all other eggs. To say that one egg's outcome has a bearing on the odds of another egg is just plain crazy. Statistically it may make sense, but we're not talking statistics. We're talking genetics. Each egg has it's own individual 1:4 odds, and you cannot change that no matter how much you would like to. That is genetics.

A six egg clutch should get me 1.5 BEL's if you wanna talk clutches. Does that make sense? No. That is an extrapolation of the Punnett Square, and just a statistical "guestimate", which is not genetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coreydelong

I'm talking on a per egg basis- apples to apples. No English debate- just pure genetics.

You cannot deny that EVERY egg has 1:4 odds of being a BEL independant of all other eggs. To say that one egg's outcome has a bearing on the odds of another egg is just plain crazy. Statistically it may make sense, but we're not talking statistics. We're talking genetics. Each egg has it's own individual 1:4 odds, and you cannot change that no matter how much you would like to. That is genetics.

A six egg clutch should get me 1.5 BEL's if you wanna talk clutches. Does that make sense? No. That is an extrapolation of the Punnett Square, and just a statistical "guestimate", which is not genetics.

---

I said numerous times that one egg obviously will not affect the next but the odds of hitting the same morph multiple times CONSECUTIVELY and exceeding the statistic expectation decreases each time you come up with that morph.

You can say its not about statistics and chance but in reality thats ALL we can go by because we cannot correctly predict the outcome. All we have to go by are the odds and Statistics.

I AM NOT DENYING THAT IT WORKS "PER EGG". BUT IT IS WRONG TO SAY THAT IT ALSO DOESNT TRANSLATE MATHEMATICALLY "PER CLUTCH"

I just remember him asking about CHANCE (which pertains to odds and "guestimating") and not the actual 100% correct prediction of the outcome of his clutch...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southwind

In the genetic wizard it says I have a 25% CHANCE to get a Blue Eyed Lucy, Is this a per egg or per clutch CHANCE?

---

It does translate genetically per clutch, but not as you say. Genetics do not apply exponentially for each consecutive egg (which form a clutch). Each egg has a 1:4 odds of being a BEL on it's own merit independant of any other egg in the clutch. If my first 3 eggs were normals, do my odds increase that the 4th is going to be a BEL? No- it's still 1:4 for the 4th egg and any egg thereafter.

There is a 25% odd that I will get all BEL's from any clutch- taking each egg into account individually just as you say it applies above. It's not a 25% odd of getting one BEL out of a clutch of 4- it's a 25% odd of getting all BEL's as each egg has a 1:4 odd on it's own merit independant of any other egg.

Again, no matter how much you'd like to deny it, each egg has it's own odds and is not in any fashion dependant on what was produced from any other egg. You cannot apply statistics, probabilities and guestimating to hard genetic facts. As I said before- the sperm are not lining up in front of the egg's deciding on who's jumping in to even the clutch's odds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coreydelong

I'm talking on a per egg basis- apples to apples.

---

I am not discussing a per egg basis so this is not apples to apples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coreydelong

You cannot deny that EVERY egg has 1:4 odds of being a BEL independant of all other eggs. To say that one egg's outcome has a bearing on the odds of another egg is just plain crazy.

---

Never got denied, never got said, you sure mention eggs a lot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coreydelong

Statistically it may make sense, but we're not talking statistics. We're talking genetics. Each egg has it's own individual 1:4 odds, and you cannot change that no matter how much you would like to. That is genetics.

---

odds are the statistics and your still stuck on per egg... am I being trolled?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coreydelong

A six egg clutch should get me 1.5 BEL's if you wanna talk clutches. Does that make sense? No. That is an extrapolation of the Punnett Square, and just a statistical "guestimate", which is not genetics.

---

How did you pull any of that out of what I said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coreydelong

You cannot apply statistics, probabilities and guestimating to hard genetic facts. .

---

you do realize the whole 1 in 4 thing is statistics right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

I am not discussing a per egg basis so this is not apples to apples.

Never got denied, never got said, you sure mention eggs a lot

odds are the statistics and your still stuck on per egg... am I being trolled?

How did you pull any of that out of what I said?

you do realize the whole 1 in 4 thing is statistics right?

---

THANK YOU! bout time i got some backup :)

The whole 1 in 4 thing from a Punnett Square is not statistics. In this case it is genetic odds from a Punnett Square. Genetic odds and statistics are completely different.

Odds are the liklelihood of something happening in the future- irregardless of the past.... 1:4 for each egg.

Statistics is a compilation of past data..... n for the # of eggs. You may perform a statistical analysis of any given set of genetic outcomes, but that has nothing to do with the odds per egg from a Punnett Square.

Once you understand that odds are "future" and statistics are "past", you will understand that genetic odds are per egg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coreydelong

Each egg has a 1:4 odds of being a BEL on it's own merit independant of any other egg in the clutch. If my first 3 eggs were normals, do my odds increase that the 4th is going to be a BEL? No- it's still 1:4 for the 4th egg and any egg thereafter.

There is a 25% odd that I will get all BEL's from any clutch- taking each egg into account individually just as you say it applies above. It's not a 25% odd of getting one BEL out of a clutch of 4- it's a 25% odd of getting all BEL's as each egg has a 1:4 odd on it's own merit independant of any other egg.

---

1. I never said th outcome of any one egg changes the next. I was simply elaborating on the idea that you brought up about getting 3 or 4 females in a row. The odds of you hitting another female,then yet another female get smaller and smaller because of the unlikelyhood that you would get that many females in the first place.
Flip 100 coins and the odds of hitting heads over and over gets smaller and smaller the more heads up coins you get. The odds per individual flip stay the say but the odds of the sequence of consecutive heads decrease.

2. It is not 25% chance to hit all bels. I agree it is 25% to hit a bel in each egg. But in order to determine how often you will get a clutch of all bels, you have to divide the odds of each egg together.

Put it this way: The chance of hitting the bel in one egg is minimal, but after getting the bel,the chance of the next egg ALSO being bel is less because you already beat the odds once. The odds if beating the odds again are lower.

People hit the big lottery ticket all the time? Ever hear if someone hitting it twice in a row? Unlikely but possible. But even less likey that he would be the one to hit it twice consecutively. Three times in a row? Astronomical!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coreydelong

The whole 1 in 4 thing from a Punnett Square is not statistics. In this case it is genetic odds from a Punnett Square. Genetic odds and statistics are completely different.

Odds are the liklelihood of something happening in the future- irregardless of the past.... 1:4 for each egg.

Statistics is a compilation of past data..... n for the # of eggs. You may perform a statistical analysis of any given set of genetic outcomes, but that has nothing to do with the odds per egg from a Punnett Square.

Once you understand that odds are "future" and statistics are "past", you will understand that genetic odds are per egg.

---

back to the english lesson....

sta·tis·tics [stuh-tis-tiks] Show IPA
noun
1.
( used with a singular verb ) the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements.

statistics is not limited to the past at all and includes your odds, sorry man.

as for this debate, your not even on the same page, after everything I said, and you cannot move past things you think were said, but never were, and can't listen to what is being said, sorry sir there nothing more I can do.

I prefer Websters..... Dictionary.com is like Wikipedia.sta·tis·tics: noun plural but singular or plural in construction \stə-ˈtis-tiks\

Definition of STATISTICS

1: a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data


2: a collection of quantitative data

All past tense there- straight from Merriam Webster.




Odds vs. Statistics

Odds and statistics are related areas of mathematics which concern themselves with analyzing the relative frequency of events. Still, there are fundamental differences in the way they see the world:

• Odds deal with predicting the likelihood of future events, while statistics involves the analysis of the frequency of past events.
• Odds is primarily a theoretical branch of mathematics, which studies the consequences of mathematical definitions. Statistics is primarily an applied branch of mathematics, which tries to make sense of observations in the real world.

Both subjects are important, relevant, and useful. But they are different, and understanding the distinction is crucial in properly interpreting the relevance of mathematical evidence. Many a gambler has gone to a cold and lonely grave for failing to make the proper distinction between odds and statistics.

This distinction will perhaps become clearer if we trace the thought process of a mathematician encountering her first craps game:

• If this mathematician were a probabilist, she would see the dice and think ``Six-sided dice? Presumably each face of the dice is equally likely to land face up. Now assuming that each face comes up with probability 1/6, I can figure out what my chances of crapping out are.''
• If instead a statistician wandered by, she would see the dice and think ``Those dice may look OK, but how do I know that they are not loaded? I'll watch a while, and keep track of how often each number comes up. Then I can decide if my observations are consistent with the assumption of equal-probability faces. Once I'm confident enough that the dice are fair, I'll call a probabilist to tell me how to play.''

In summary, odds theory enables us to find the consequences of a given ideal world, while statistical theory enables us to to measure the extent to which our world is ideal.

Completely different as odds deals with the "theory" that something will happen while statistics is a mathematical calculation based on outcomes. I could flip a coin for heads (1:2 odds) 1000 times. The odds are that 500 would be heads and 500 would be tails. You don't know the statistics until you actually flip the coin 1000 times. The odds are that the statistical results will not match the odds- if you can grasp that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coreydelong

I prefer Websters..... Dictionary.com is like Wikipedia.sta·tis·tics: noun plural but singular or plural in construction \stə-ˈtis-tiks\

Definition of STATISTICS

1: a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data

2: a collection of quantitative data

All past tense there- straight from Merriam Webster.

---

Oh the irony of the english, but there is nothing past tense in there....
The article is nice, but the statistic class I took would disagree. As odds a very much involved and a part of statistics. I wish it was easy as gathering, looking at, and showing data to people lol.

Before arguing this anymore, why is this the subject? The data I provided is not in the past, it is simply a list of all possible outcomes. I fail to see where you are going with this.

Hate to perpetuate the statistics argument here but I think I can shed some light on the math at play here, lets look at the normal x lesser and the odds of calculating getting AT LEAST one lesser in a 4 egg clutch


First, you need to define the exact question here. If looking at any 1 egg being a lesser the odds are 25% as mentioned may times.

If the question is what are the odds of getting a lesser in a clutch that is where the statistics come into play. It is true that the genetics of one egg won't have any affect on the next egg but that's not what we're talking about. What is in question here is the odds of finding at least 1 lesser in the clutch.

So for the math, lets say you have a clutch with N eggs. The probability of finding a lesser = 1 - (probability of NOT finding a lesser) = 1 - (0.75 ^ N). For a clutch of 4 eggs, P(1 lesser) = 1 - (0.75 ^ 4) = 1 - 0.42 = 58%. You can do similar calculations for the odds of finding an exact number of lessers in a clutch but the calculation isn't as simple.


Think of it like dice, roll 1 die and the odds of hitting a 6 is 1:6. If you roll 3 die though, the odds of hitting a 6 is no longer 1:6. Oddly it also isn't 1:2 as you might initially think, but that's where the above calculation comes from ;) Eggs are no different, 1 egg may be 1:4 but your chances of finding at least 1 increases as you have more eggs.



Back on topic, I'm a huge fan of the Super Mojave BELs and once I'm in a position to start breeding this will be on my shortlist of goals. I've always been a BEL fan and love the breeding options of the Super Mojave as others mentioned back on pages 1 and 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sullitf

Hate to perpetuate the statistics argument here but I think I can shed some light on the math at play here, lets look at the normal x lesser and the odds of calculating getting AT LEAST one lesser in a 4 egg clutch


First, you need to define the exact question here. If looking at any 1 egg being a lesser the odds are 25% as mentioned may times.

If the question is what are the odds of getting a lesser in a clutch that is where the statistics come into play. It is true that the genetics of one egg won't have any affect on the next egg but that's not what we're talking about. What is in question here is the odds of finding at least 1 lesser in the clutch.

So for the math, lets say you have a clutch with N eggs. The probability of finding a lesser = 1 - (probability of NOT finding a lesser) = 1 - (0.75 ^ N). For a clutch of 4 eggs, P(1 lesser) = 1 - (0.75 ^ 4) = 1 - 0.42 = 58%. You can do similar calculations for the odds of finding an exact number of lessers in a clutch but the calculation isn't as simple.


Think of it like dice, roll 1 die and the odds of hitting a 6 is 1:6. If you roll 3 die though, the odds of hitting a 6 is no longer 1:6. Oddly it also isn't 1:2 as you might initially think, but that's where the above calculation comes from ;) Eggs are no different, 1 egg may be 1:4 but your chances of finding at least 1 increases as you have more eggs.



Back on topic, I'm a huge fan of the Super Mojave BELs and once I'm in a position to start breeding this will be on my shortlist of goals. I've always been a BEL fan and love the breeding options of the Super Mojave as others mentioned back on pages 1 and 2.

---

Thanks so much for this! I hate math so I know I couldn't explain it, but you did great!

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2