Proving a Poss Het...

[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.

[rabernet]

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

[The Serpent Merchant]

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.

[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.

[Mike41793]

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.

[grcforce327]

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!

[OhhWatALoser]

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.

[paulh]

...

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.

[interloc]

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.

[T&C Exotics]

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.