Killer Bee Balls - Page 4

CamHanna · 02-19-05, 11:41 AM

The chance of getting a KB in one egg is 1 - .75^1= 25.00%
The chance of getting a KB in two eggs is 1 - .75^2= 43.75%
The chance of getting a KB in four eggs is 1 - .75^4= 68.36%
The chance of getting a KB in eight eggs is 1 - .75^8= 89.99%
The chance of getting a KB in sixteen eggs is 1 - .75^16= 99.00%

David Kwok · 02-19-05, 11:56 AM

I am curious how you calculate your ROI

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff_Favelle
Do "real" investments give a rate of return of 5000% within a fiscal year?

Markus Jayne · 02-19-05, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim_Cranwill
Mark, that's not the best way to look at it. By that logic...

- If you flip a coin once, you have a 50% chance of getting tails.

- If you flip a coin twice, you have a 100% chance of getting tails.

See what I mean? Your example looks a bit better because the percentage grows a bit slower but it's the same principal. Even if you flip that coin ten times, you aren't guaranteed to get tails. Odds are you will, but it's not a guarantee.

Yes I realize that there are no guarantees in life....except for death and taxes.

That's it then! I only have a 99% chance out of 16 eggs. At those odds I think I'll abandon that notion. LOL!

Thanks.

Mark

Tim_Cranwill · 02-19-05, 12:53 PM

LOL!

greenman1867 · 02-19-05, 01:39 PM

Well if you put it that way there is a chance someday we will not die, but live forever. Taxes on the other hand...............

We are after all Canadians (mostly) whats tax free day again? October 12th?

LOL

hhw · 02-20-05, 03:16 PM

The general formula for calculating the odds of hatching out n x number of morphs out of a sample size of s with a probability of p is:

(number of different combinations) x p^n x (1 - p)^(s - n)

The number of different combinations is calculated by using what's called a combinatorial. The combinatorial here would be read "s choose n". It would generally be written as a capital C with the s superscript and the n subscript. The formula for a combinatorial involves factorials, which makes it a bit difficult to calculate using a calculator if it doesn't already support the factorial function.

The general equation as a whole is known as the binomial theorem or binomial formula, if you're interested in looking it up further.

Markus Jayne · 02-20-05, 08:12 PM

Umm...yeah...you took the words right out of my mouth. Damn I hate it when someone does that! LOL!

Mark

paulsreef · 02-20-05, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mykee
Except when you buy designer clothing, in three years you wouldn't be able to sell it for 1/10th it's original asking price. With ball pythons the value will be exponential. Rip-off? Enjoy your designer doublemint-green Brady Bunch reversable polyester slax.

Mykee, you just don't have an eye for fashion!

CHRISANDBOIDS14 · 02-20-05, 11:22 PM

Man, this is a great thread!

I know I cant afford either(Bumblebee or Killer Bee), and I understand the factors in play, but I belive there should be a larger difference in price between bumblebee and killer bee. I think $7000 is not much of a difference, because Pastels are going for what.....$1200-2800....super pastels are going for like....$12-16000(USD), in Canadian Funds, $15K+ If I remeber correctly? There is a big difference there. JMO.

C.

Bristen · 02-21-05, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hhw
The general formula for calculating the odds of hatching out n x number of morphs out of a sample size of s with a probability of p is:

(number of different combinations) x p^n x (1 - p)^(s - n)

The number of different combinations is calculated by using what's called a combinatorial. The combinatorial here would be read "s choose n". It would generally be written as a capital C with the s superscript and the n subscript. The formula for a combinatorial involves factorials, which makes it a bit difficult to calculate using a calculator if it doesn't already support the factorial function.

The general equation as a whole is known as the binomial theorem or binomial formula, if you're interested in looking it up further.

I remember learning all of this stuff at school.. but I haven't used it for close to 10 years now, can't remember a whole lot of it.. I wasn't that great with it to begin with.. I should try to find my old school/university books and notes as it would be useful to be able to calculate this for projections...

Thanks for all the details, even though I confess I didn't understand a whole lot of it!

Bristen.

RandyRemington · 02-21-05, 09:43 AM

I'm with you Bristen, it's been too long. HHW's formulas look (and I'm sure are) right on but I would have to dust off the old textbooks to check them. I'm doing good just to remember the basic simple formula for producing one or more that explains how the odds increase with clutch/sample size (Mykee) but never get over or even fully reach 100% (Mark).

Bristen · 02-21-05, 10:03 AM

I'm not sure, but I doubt there will ever be a sample size that will theoritically guarantee you (100%) to hit what you're trying to accomplish... in practical terms, after a certain sample size, you will almost certainly hit the combo you want, but theoritically I think the number could be something like 99.999999999999999% or something of that nature even on VERY large sample sizes.. but what do I know lol!?!? I barely remember any of this stuff heh...

Interesting thread everyone, even though we have side-tracked somewhat from the original question! (How much does it cost, why are they so expensive, etc)...

Bristen.

RandyRemington · 02-21-05, 11:18 AM

That reminds me of a joke one of my professors told. Seems an engineering and a math student where lined up on one side of the room and an attractive student of the opposite gender on the other side. The engineering and math student where told that they could take turns advancing half of the remaining distance toward the attractive student. The math student protested that it would never be possible to actually get all the way across the room because there would always be half the distance from the last turn remaining. The engineering student agreed but pointed out that it would be possible to get "close enough for all practical purposes".

Mark, please let us know what you get from that pewter breeding. I'm assuming you are breeding him to pastel females and expect the six types to be normal, pastel, cinnamon, pewter, super pastel, and cinnamon super pastel. However, if it turns out that pastel and cinnamon are alleles (different mutations of the same gene) then you will only get pastel, cinnamon, super pastel, and pewter. The consolation for cinnamon super pastel not being possible would be that you would get no normals from pewter X normal, only pastels and cinnamons (but no pewters either).

hhw · 02-21-05, 11:26 AM

Hehe, you'd definitely hit 100% with a sample size of infinity. It would just be an exponential function f(x) = 1 - 0.75^x. Think limits in pre-calculus / calculus 1.

I think most people would be satsified with 999,999 times out of a million, though. In which case, it's simply log(0.000001) / log (0.75) = 48. So, hatch out 8 clutches of pastel x pastel with an average clutch size of 6 and there'll only be a one in a million chance that you won't hatch out a super pastel.

greenman1867 · 02-21-05, 11:27 AM

Ouch my brain hurts