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.
Reply With Quote