Mojave + Mojave = Blue eyed Lucy?

[OhhWatALoser]

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.

[CD CONSTRICTORS]

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.

[Izzys Keeper]

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...

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?

[CD CONSTRICTORS]

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.

[OhhWatALoser]

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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

[Izzys Keeper]

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

[CD CONSTRICTORS]

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.

[Izzys Keeper]

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!

[OhhWatALoser]

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.

[CD CONSTRICTORS]

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.