Dating apps are very likely one of the biggest scams ever known to 'man'-kind.

[BurnedOut]

Research:
1. Only 0.6% men match
2. Only 20% women reply
3. 67% of the people are males

Other empirical stuff:
1. Dating apps use a very primitive algorithm. Probably extremely shitty and badly written
2. Only the UI shines. Common 21st century symptom - good UI, zero viability.
3. It takes a few lines of if-else code blocks to paywall. You are literally asking for money for a mere 3-4 lines of code
4. If every user only pays 1$, the cost is well over enough to maintain the app and its infrastructure and the company maintaining it.

Some of my observations over several dating apps:
1. Beautiful women appear a lot more often. 6/10 are hot. This is clearly a misrepresentation of reality
Explanation? Feedback loop mechanism where beauty is a factor. 'Uglier' people are weeded out
2. Most of the girls are 'not new here'. Combine that with the first point. Very likely that they are only there are seeking attention
3. Only 24 hours to reply and hardly 10-15 swipes when there are thousands and thousands of women. 10/10000 x 100 (consider an Indian district). My estimation is not too wrong - Hardly 1% chance of being seen.

You are not getting matches online because of capitalism not because of your follies.

 

[BurnedOut]

Official feature list of Bumble Premium:

1. See everyone who swiped right on you with Beeline.
2. Rematch with expired connections.
3. Extend your matches by 24 hours.
4. Backtrack on accidental left swipes.
5. Get unlimited swipes.
6. Put yourself in the Spotlight.
7. Use five SuperSwipes per week.
8. Focus on what you’re looking for with Advanced Filters.
9. Activate Incognito Mode for more privacy.
10. Swipe in other locations with Travel Mode.

---

Bumble does not use natural language processing so bios are largely irrelevant when the app runs its' matching algorithm. Other preferences are there but they are inconsequential to most extent. A guy or a girl being a nonsmoker may be an issue for some but teetotalism is largely irrelevant. Religion, faith, music, etc are also useless because you cannot simply say 'Christian' and expect the other person to be a 'Christian' in the sense you were considering. However, these parameters are also useless because it does not programmatically show people of those preferences.

---

Bumble boasts of 'lots of filters' in the premium version. I am only inclined to think what kind of filters they are talking about. It cannot be anything related to bio and other preferences because they are uselessly vague. I think it may be about what places to actually go or what activities to actually engage in but that seems to be useless if you are going to swipe on non-premium users but it will seriously limit the number of people you can actually meet. Or narrow it down. Whatsoever, I cannot conceive their idea.

Remember: The more filters you apply the more limited the number of users you see in your Swipe Deck and (for Boost subscribers) the Beeline. If you feel like things seem a little quiet in your part of the Hive try toggling your filters to allow more folks to appear for you to swipe on.

This is what 'advanced filters' mean. This is a scam because men using the premium version would not like to limit the number of girls they will look at or vice versa.

Secondly, it seems like Bumble is very conspicuously telling its users that there is a guaranteed chance you will be at least seen by the women swiping the cards but that is a lie. Consider all the people of your age group (+-3) in a radius of 5 miles. Consider the women which is half of that population (and skewed in my country in favour of men). That number is the number of cards the apps should show to serve justice to all the users. If that is the case then every man has at least a 50% chance of matching with ANY woman because if you consider the mean opportunity levels, it will regress to mean - roughly 50% chance for ANY man to be matched with ANY woman. In reality, this is not what was found. The rate was found to be a dismal 0.6%. That is very very far than what should actually happen. Even if you provide one like for one woman, that will still be extremely cheap for the app to do because all they have to do is incrementally gather and sort the number of users in a particular region and redisplay the same users to each other. If this is done, user consistency will greatly increase and there will be no need of recollecting the data - (the 'infrastructure' these people keep talking about) but only sorting which is much faster.

In real life, this is how it works. They provide you with 10-ish cards. The success rate of each card being shown for every man is only 10 % if you consider 100 men competing for attention for 10 women which is extremely unfair as it is. To add to that, if you consider a realistic 40% being the rate of success then, then the overall success rate goes down to 4%. Comically, even 4% is much greater than 0.6%. Such an abysmal rate only becomes very suspicious and worthy of analysis.

---

Now, let us talk about how beauty also plays a role to an extent that is much more than required. There are two possibilities -
1. Beautiful girls tend to join dating apps more
2. The app is actively discriminating

Bumble has 66 million users as of 2021. It is vacuous to assume that women who form the 33% are all going to be beautiful. In fact that 21.78 million can be assumed to be a representative of a normal population with beautiful lying on some sort of a normal distribution scale of SD because it is impossible to select 21.78M girls on the basis of beauty alone without engaging in some sort of strategy that won't act attention from people. So it looks like there are as a matter of fact not-so-beautiful looking girls but they are grossly underrepresented as if the app is excluding them by sort of an unofficial 'popularity' measure. That is highly likely given how 'superlike' and other similar features are advertised so frequently.

The reason why this is not being explored is because of the fact that 'women' who 'express fulfillment with the app' (Play store has a whopping 4.3 stars) are the ones who keep matching. The ones who don't hope or delete the app without thinking about it much and feel that some sort of a dry spell is going on or berate themselves for not being beautiful enough. Which is very poignant because who knows how many people are getting their self-esteem wrecked by using Bumble and inappropriately blaming themselves when it is the app which is at fault.

---

For how long are such algorithms be kept in secret and not open for public scrutiny? Are the Big Tech industries aware of the mayhem they are causing and they just want to get away with it and keep earning money at the expense of people's health? Do you feel that the rising mental health issues among tweens are also caused by these unscrupulous algorithms? I feel that this might be the case. We already know how algorithms cause the very trend they measure and I think it is high time somebody drags Mark and Pichai and other barons' arses to the waterboard for interrogation because it is clearly a human right violation.

 

[dr froyd]

yeah but what's the alternative

 

[Hadoblado]

What is the time frame of the statistics you give?

.8% is miserably low but if this is a .8% chance a day that's kind of reasonable.

Also, I would just be aware that these stats are going to have a lot of noise. If you can make a good profile you're going to have a lot more success. If you invest effort you can expect better returns.

I think it's better to be focused with this sort of analysis. You hop around for anything that gets you angry, but if you frame it as a simple question that would probably give you a more useful answer.

The question I would as is "if I put in sufficient effort, how does using a dating app compare to not using a dating app?".

 

[Puffy]

Dating apps are ultimately products owned by a company that needs to make a profit in order to continue offering the product.

In order to hook people into the product they offer it initially for free. But it's designed in such a way, like some of the things you describe OP, to make the free experience unsatisfying. Tinder and Bumble are both the same in this respect. So, as a result more people will invest in the paid product in order to bypass some of these frustrations.

I don't like it as I don't think that's a great user experience. But that's basically the conversion strategy of that kind of app.

 

[Cognisant]

The way dating apps should work is that only women are able to message men. This stops men spamming messages to every woman on the platform (trawling) and women can't just use the platform for attention farming because if they want a guy they need to snap him up before someone else does.

 

[Hadoblado]

The way dating apps should work is that only women are able to message men. This stops men spamming messages to every woman on the platform (trawling) and women can't just use the platform for attention farming because if they want a guy they need to snap him up before someone else does.

This is inspired.

 

[BurnedOut]

What is the time frame of the statistics you give?

24 hours

 

[BurnedOut]

.8% chance a day that's kind of reasonable.

That translates into a whopping 99.2% failure rate. Even worse than gambling or using a slot machine

 

[BurnedOut]

Dating apps are ultimately products owned by a company that needs to make a profit in order to continue offering the product.

GNU Linux is also maintained by several companies who work on it for free. It is used in servers across the world, so you can probably imagine the importance of GNU Linux in this world. And guess what? It is for free. If you intend to earn profit then you should offer something completely worthwhile. However, people have complained about not matching even after securing a Premium account. That just explains the hideousness of the devs.

Even if they want to earn profits, they can simply do so by asking for donations. The app is too easy to make and maintain. There is nothing in it that requires 1000 coders to work on it. A dating app can be simply be made by a single person just like Ragnar hosting intpforum.com on a server he bought. Funnily, if it is open-source, there will be public discourse on algorithms which is what we require given how there are causal links found between mental health troubles and dating apps and social media in general. There is nobody being held accountable.

I am planning to write my own dating app someday after I earn money to rent some servers. It will be open source and the algorithm will be public. The most important feature will be ensuring that the number of men are roughly equal to the number of women.

 

[Hadoblado]

Wait it's daily? That's fine.

So if I jump on a dating app for three months I've got a decent chance of finding a match that I wouldn't otherwise have got? How much would this cost me?

I mean sure, if you're comparing to women's chances on dating apps it's bad, but your point of comparison should be your chances without the app right?

 

[BurnedOut]

So if I jump on a dating app for three months I've got a decent chance of finding a match that I wouldn't otherwise have got? How much would this cost me?

No. After 24 hours, they reset whatever progress you have made. So it 0.6% per day. You will probably never get a match in a year or 10 years or 3 days.

 

[BurnedOut]

You hop around for anything that gets you angry, but if you frame it as a simple question that would probably give you a more useful answer.

That is a superfluous thing to say. I don't 'search' for anything that gets me angry. It is inquisitiveness more than anything else. And if you find my anger unjustified, I really don't care because I have pretty strong reasons to be angry at it. If you believe that social media is not violating your human rights, I am sure, I am not the one who's on the wrong side of all this. You keep ignoring large swathes of analysis I write to justify my anger, keeping in mind the rules of debating. Only recently I had gone guns blazing but even during that phase of mental instability, I did not stop penning down discourses. So I am unsure what you want to say because you have repeated the same behaviour across threads and it is getting annoying at this point. If you want to criticize me then at least go through what I have read.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm not debating you, I'm discussing a topic. I'm not going to quote spam every paragraph of a text wall. I want to explore the things that people say that I find interesting, I'm not representing any opposing narrative.

What I find interesting here is how success is measured. I do not use dating apps though I might at some point in the future depending on my conclusions following this conversation. Meeting people I'm interested in is difficult.

I do often offer feedback to people, I see this as a kind of honesty. I can very much see how it would come across as confrontational, but that is not my intention. If it annoys you I'll stop. Sorry.

 

[BurnedOut]

f it annoys you I'll stop. Sorry.

I have no problems with criticism at all. I have a problem with criticism that does not have a rational basis or lacks reasoning altogether

 

[Hadoblado]

Using the .6% figure, you can expect an 11% chance of a match after a month. A 1% chance per day means better than a 25% hit rate per month.

So anything you can do to be even a little bit above average is going to make this a much better option.

Would I pay for this sort of opportunity? Not at the moment, but if my priorities moved around then maybe.

A lot of the competition is low effort so this shouldn't be too difficult depending on where you start. Good hygiene for your pics (haircut) will boost you. Passing the normie test (pics of friends, pets, you being active) are easy boosts. After that, you've probably got to head to the gym to really improve your chances.

 

[BurnedOut]

Using the .6% figure, you can expect an 11% chance of a match after a month

I am telling you, it just resets your progress after 24 hours. At any point of time, you are essentially starting from scratch. Therefore, the success rate stays stuck at 0.6%

 

[Hadoblado]

Yes. I believe that we are on the same page. I'm not communicating this well.

Ummm...

1d6 rolled once: Chance of rolling at least one 6 = 1/6
1d6 rolled twice: Chance of rolling at least one 6 = 11/36

The chance of rolling a 6 on any given roll remains 1/6, but sampling a greater number of rolls gives you a greater global chance.

So using a dating app should not be seen as a singular instance of .6%, since you're "rerolling" daily.

 

[BurnedOut]

1d6 rolled twice: Chance of rolling at least one 6 = 11/36

The chance of rolling a 6 on any given roll remains 1/6, but sampling a greater number of rolls gives you a greater global chance.

A die is always going to have 6 faces with 6 numbers - 1 through 6. But the dating app die's faces are completely random every time you roll the die and hence the probability never goes beyond 0.6%.

For instance:
1st toss' die - 1,2,3,4,5,6 - 1/6 chance of getting any number
2nd toss' die - 11, -1, 93, 21, 22 - 1/6 chance of getting any number

You wanted 6 as the number, for an instance, but 6 will never be repeated in any toss. That is what they do when they say that 'you have 24 hours to match with somebody.'

As a matter I understand your confusion and you are raising a valid point - it ought to work like that. That is what I meant by 'redisplaying' in the second post. But these cunning bastards apply the second strategy to con you.

 

[Puffy]

@Cognisant What you’re describing is how Bumble works. The issue is that women have a lot more choice than men on the apps and are select in who they message so burnedout’s stats go even lower. You have no way of impressing someone unless they reach out to you first.

@Hadoblado I think it’s about reward vs effort. In a period of 2-3 months on tinder I had 1 match that resulted in a date, which was fun but ultimately didn’t go anywhere. To get there required a lot of time spent on the app, so it felt like a time sink that wasn’t going anywhere. The probability is that most first time encounters won’t result in a relationship, so if you’re only meeting 4-6 people in a year that’s not great odds. Admittedly I think the problem is at least in part with me and my pickiness (not in terms of looks, more interests, etc) so I think I could meet more people through apps if I tried.

For me, I decided the strategy I’d take for now was to actively go to more meet-ups that align with my interests. Not with any intention to hit on anyone, just as the more friends I make with similar interests the more likelihood that something will spark off from that.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Burned
Hmmm okay now I'm a bit confused.

I think we're still not on the same page. "Six" is just a representation of the .6% probability of a match. I don't want a specific six, I want any .6% match.

Answer me this to diagnose: If you are the perfectly average male with a .6% daily match rate who is using a dating app, after one week what is your chance of getting matched?

@Puffy
Yeah that's probably my preferred approach. Having something in common is a great filter and being able to see people and interact in a more natural environment makes it a lot easier for people to express themselves in a more meaningful way.

 

[Puffy]

Dating apps are ultimately products owned by a company that needs to make a profit in order to continue offering the product.

GNU Linux is also maintained by several companies who work on it for free. It is used in servers across the world, so you can probably imagine the importance of GNU Linux in this world. And guess what? It is for free. If you intend to earn profit then you should offer something completely worthwhile. However, people have complained about not matching even after securing a Premium account. That just explains the hideousness of the devs.

Even if they want to earn profits, they can simply do so by asking for donations. The app is too easy to make and maintain. There is nothing in it that requires 1000 coders to work on it. A dating app can be simply be made by a single person just like Ragnar hosting intpforum.com on a server he bought. Funnily, if it is open-source, there will be public discourse on algorithms which is what we require given how there are causal links found between mental health troubles and dating apps and social media in general. There is nobody being held accountable.

I am planning to write my own dating app someday after I earn money to rent some servers. It will be open source and the algorithm will be public. The most important feature will be ensuring that the number of men are roughly equal to the number of women.

If you read to the end of my post I caveat that I’m not a fan of this approach. I’m just saying they ultimately are paid products and that’s the approach these companies have taken with it.

 

[BurnedOut]

I think we're still not on the same page. "Six" is just a representation of the .6% probability of a match. I don't want a specific six, I want any .6% match.

I fail to see how the chances of getting a match increase at all in N days if every n+1 day has a completely different configuration. You are saying that the chances of you matching with somebody are proportional to the number of days passed. However if there is zero sharing of parameters across tries, how will probability increase?

Suppose there is a die whose faces' numbers get multiplied by 0.5 every time you toss it. After N tosses, what is the probability that you would get a number that has been repeated before? 0% right?

What I am telling you is akin to gambling and sports. Every team in a successive match has a 50-50 chance of winning or losing in a perfect scenario but we perceive false patterns of continuation - if a team wins 3 matches in a row, we think it will win the fourth one also but that is not the case.

In any case, we both will be in a win-win situation if you are able to mathematically explain your point

 

[Hadoblado]

Answer me this to diagnose: If you are the perfectly average male with a .6% daily match rate who is using a dating app, after one week what is your chance of getting matched?

Answer this first. If your answer to this is the same as mine then there's no need to explain because we agree.

 

[BurnedOut]

Answer this first.

0.6%

 

[Cognisant]

NEEEEEERDS

@Cognisant What you’re describing is how Bumble works. The issue is that women have a lot more choice than men on the apps and are select in who they message so burnedout’s stats go even lower. You have no way of impressing someone unless they reach out to you first.

I believe you although it conflicts with my own experiences which suggests there's some other factor at play.

On dating sites where men and women can message each other freely I find the best tactic is to view profiles but not message anyone, because women are accustomed to men trawling for attention so even if they do read your message you're already on the backfoot, just one of the crowd.

But if you view their profile and don't message them that sometimes makes them curious, why would a guy view their profile and not message them, does he think he can do better? Then if they message you you're not just one of the crowd you're that guy she was curious enough about to send a message to, and having made that effort she now wants a reply, and she'll be a little bit happy to get it.

I guess the difference is on a platform where women are supposed to be the ones taking initiative there's no opportunity to play coy like this, so it wouldn't really work the way I thought.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, thanks. This makes it clearer where we're at.

We agree that each instance is independent, in that the outcome of one day does not impact the next day. However, after one week you've had 7 chances.

A coin flip is 50%, but if you flip 7 coins you're almost certain to get at least one heads. If your chance of getting a match in one day was 50%, this logic is the same. When you reduce the likelihood within each instance from 50% to .6%, you will not reach near certainty within a week, but your overall chances will improve. If you extend the time period long enough (years probably), your likelihood of matching at least once becomes close to 100% overall (despite still being .6% each day).

I'm not talking about the daily chance increasing, just the overall chance of matching.

I consider this a better metric of whether a dating service is worth using because you can then treat it as a supplemental chance to your real-life encounters.

 

[BurnedOut]

. If you extend the time period long enough (years probably), your likelihood of matching at least once becomes close to 100% overall (despite still being .6% each day).

Okay, I have assimilated your point. However, consider this kind of a coin -
Heads: 10
Tails: 6

After each toss, the number on the face is halved. What is the chance that you will be able to repeat any number on any try if there is a 0.6% possibility of getting heads?

Your point is valid if and only if the cards are recycled just like the faces of a coin.

Have you ever played a game of chance and thought you found a pattern in some random events such as dice rolling. The gambler’s fallacy is our belief that prior outcomes affect future outcomes in situations of pure random chance. For example, it’s not more likely that your next roll of a die will be a two because you haven’t rolled in two in the last several throws. (“I’m due for a two!”)

 

[dr froyd]

obviously if you have a 0.6% chance per day of meeting a woman, then you have 1 - 0.994^30 = 16.5% chance of meeting a woman in the course of a month.

in fact this is the only way to approach online dating, since 1) there's a much bigger supply of men than women, and 2) even if a woman likes you initially you're still just a random dude on the internet and there's a high chance her attention will move to something else very quickly. Hell, even if you're a guy who rarely gets replies it's hard to retain motivation to keep talking to a random woman online.

last time I used online dating I would say the probabilities were something like this:
- about 20% chance of getting a reply
- of those, about 25% result in a real conversation
- of those, about 1/3 result in a physical meeting

so that's about 1.67% chance per initial message you send. If you send a message to 50 women, you have about 57% of meeting at least one.

and I would say I'm being pretty conservative with the estimates

 

[Puffy]

NEEEEEERDS

@Cognisant What you’re describing is how Bumble works. The issue is that women have a lot more choice than men on the apps and are select in who they message so burnedout’s stats go even lower. You have no way of impressing someone unless they reach out to you first.

I believe you although it conflicts with my own experiences which suggests there's some other factor at play.

On dating sites where men and women can message each other freely I find the best tactic is to view profiles but not message anyone, because women are accustomed to men trawling for attention so even if they do read your message you're already on the backfoot, just one of the crowd.

But if you view their profile and don't message them that sometimes makes them curious, why would a guy view their profile and not message them, does he think he can do better? Then if they message you you're not just one of the crowd you're that guy she was curious enough about to send a message to, and having made that effort she now wants a reply, and she'll be a little bit happy to get it.

I guess the difference is on a platform where women are supposed to be the ones taking initiative there's no opportunity to play coy like this, so it wouldn't really work the way I thought.

It's Bumble's modus operandi. It was founded by one of the female directors of Tinder with the goal of making a dating app where women have more control over the exchanges. Hence the whole bee/hive imagery, with women being like the queen bee with a hive of horny male worker bees hovering around her for attention.

Your strategy sounds lit. If I ever try dating apps again, I'll check it out. I'm always in favour of less effort for better results.

 

[Hadoblado]

. If you extend the time period long enough (years probably), your likelihood of matching at least once becomes close to 100% overall (despite still being .6% each day).

Okay, I have assimilated your point. However, consider this kind of a coin -
Heads: 10
Tails: 6

After each toss, the number on the face is halved. What is the chance that you will be able to repeat any number on any try if there is a 0.6% possibility of getting heads?

Your point is valid if and only if the cards are recycled just like the faces of a coin.

Have you ever played a game of chance and thought you found a pattern in some random events such as dice rolling. The gambler’s fallacy is our belief that prior outcomes affect future outcomes in situations of pure random chance. For example, it’s not more likely that your next roll of a die will be a two because you haven’t rolled in two in the last several throws. (“I’m due for a two!”)

We're still not there yet. Dismissing what I'm saying as a gambler's fallacy doesn't make sense because I've stated that the events are independent.

Dr Froyd sees this the same as me, despite me conveying it poorly.

What's being missed is that I'm not talking about the daily chance increasing. I'm talking about the overall chance increasing.

You flip a coin, you have a 50% chance of at least one heads. You flip two completely separate independent coins you now have a 75% chance of getting at least one heads. This is all I'm saying.

There are more sophisticated approaches that don't assume independence, but I'm talking about the most basic statistical analysis assuming independent events.

 

[BurnedOut]

You flip a coin, you have a 50% chance of at least one heads. You flip two completely separate independent coins you now have a 75% chance of getting at least one heads. This is all I'm saying.

Okay, I have assimilated your point. However, consider this kind of a coin -
Heads: 10
Tails: 6

After each toss, the number on the face is halved. What is the chance that you will be able to repeat any number on any try if there is a 0.6% possibility of getting heads?

Just answer this question and end our debate. We can just agree to disagree after this.

 

[BurnedOut]

last time I used online dating I would say the probabilities were something like this:
- about 20% chance of getting a reply
- of those, about 25% result in a real conversation
- of those, about 1/3 result in a physical meeting

so that's about 1.67% chance per initial message you send. If you send a message to 50 women, you have about 57% of meeting at least one.

and I would say I'm being pretty conservative with the estimates

You have only 24 hours. Which means 10 cards only. 10 women a day to look at. Therefore each new day is a completely new day without any influence from the outcome of the past day. I called it Gambler's fallacy for the same reason:
- You win 3/10 matches on Monday and the possibility of you winning a match is 30% (right now)
- What is the probability of you winning 3 matches the next day?
- What is the probability of you winning 3 matches on following Monday?

If your answer is 'I don't know' then we can all be cool. If you have an answer then state your explanation.

@dr froyd @Hadoblado Just answer these questions.

When playing RNG-operated Roulette games, playing on Hot or Cold numbers is complete nonsense. The numbers the ball will land on are determined by the Random Number Generator (RNG) and are completely random and unbiased. We can talk about Roulette wheel bias at casinos using physical equipment or dealer signature at Live Roulette tables, but all of these can help you identify the section of the table where the ball will land at best. Knowing the exact number the ball will land on in the next round is impossible even when you have statistics that show you the most frequent numbers in the last 1,000 rounds.

It is a common mistake to confuse two distinct questions: “What is the probability of getting ten reds in a future series of ten spins?” and “What is the probability of the next spin being red, given the fact that the last nine spins have been red?” The answer to the former is about 0.057%. The answer to the latter is about 47%, if the wheel has both 0 and 00 slots.

You don't have to be gambling or at a poker table to see this. Here's a study done some years back. People were asked to guess which of two lights on a computer screen would come on. They were told that the sequence was random, that the light on the right was as likely to come on as the left. Virtually every person playing this "guessing" game showed the gambler's fallacy. The more often one light came on, the more likely they were to predict the other side. If there was a really long run, like seven lefts in a row, they picked the right side on the next trial nearly 100% of the time! When asked why, they said that the other one was "due."

 

[BurnedOut]

This thread reminds me of that Dunning-Kruger Effect thread now

 

[Hadoblado]

Just answer this question and end our debate. We can just agree to disagree after this.

Fair request, but again, I'm not debating you. We have a misunderstanding between us, and I want to work with you rather than against you.

Heads: 10
Tails: 6

After each toss, the number on the face is halved. What is the chance that you will be able to repeat any number on any try if there is a 0.6% possibility of getting heads?

Okay, so the number on the face replaces the heads/tails?

First roll:
99.4% tails (6); tails becomes 3
.6% heads (10); heads becomes 5

Second roll:

• If first roll = heads
  • 99.4% tails (6); tails becomes 3
  • .6% heads (5); heads becomes 2.5
• If first roll = tails
  • 99.4% tails (3); tails becomes 1.5
  • .6% heads(10); heads becomes 5

And so on and so forth. The chance of getting heads or tails per flip remains the same. The chance of repeating a number? On a single face, zero. Between the faces? I don't know. Possibly zero? Possibly 100% since you've given infinite tries. I don't know anything about this.

Not sure if that helps.

It is a common mistake to confuse two distinct questions: “What is the probability of getting ten reds in a future series of ten spins?” and “What is the probability of the next spin being red, given the fact that the last nine spins have been red?” The answer to the former is about 0.057%. The answer to the latter is about 47%, if the wheel has both 0 and 00 slots.

This is exactly what's occurring. Froyd and I are talking about “What is the probability of getting ten reds in a future series of ten spins?”, you're talking about “What is the probability of the next spin being red, given the fact that the last nine spins have been red?”

We're not assuming luck has memory, we're answering a different question.

 

[Hadoblado]

Do we understand each other now? We are answering different questions so our answer is different.

 

[BurnedOut]

This discourse is very important in order to completely demolish the case of dating app and prove with hard science that it is actually a scam and they are liable to lawsuits.

---

Okay, back to square 1.

What is P(head) for a coin if tossed once? 50%

However, social phenomenon are not that easy to quantify. They found 0.6% as the possibility of the match. The constraints for each try:

No cards are repeated after being displayed once. No REUSABILITY at any point in time at any attempt

If at any point in time, if your possibility of getting a match is 0.6%, after N days, will the probability still be 0.6? Now answer my question.

---

Suppose USA declares that toilet rolls will be unavailable for 1 year across all stores in the country. However, in that one year, the government will allot only one based on a real random number generator that selects social security number randomly. You only have usage for toilet paper in that 1 year.

P(toilet paper) = 0.6 for one day.

Will P be the same after 200 days?

---

Hadoblado, a gigolo is giving PUA lessons to Cognisant. He tells Cog that a certain bar in New York boasts of a high success rate when it comes to people finding mates - 40%. However, Cognisant assumes that if he goes to that bar regularly, his success rate will be compounded. Much to his disappointment, he never able to get laid more than 4 times every time he went to the bar and that too after painfully asking out 10 girls one after other.

Hadoblado does not tell him that the girls with whom there is a 40% rate never visit the bar twice because he feels that it an irrelevant fact.

He gets tired and then accuses Hadoblado of lying to him about his chances being greater at that bar. Is Cognisant right to blame Hado?

 

[Hadoblado]

Please don't all caps me. We can do a debate bro punch down if you like, but that won't be productive.

You are talking about the probability of the next spin. I am not. I don't care about the probability of an individual day and never have. I would never appraise a dating app by what the chances are of a match given only a single day. Rather, I would ask what the chances are given a specific amount of time (like a month).

However, at some point, you said this:

No. After 24 hours, they reset whatever progress you have made. So it 0.6% per day. You will probably never get a match in a year or 10 years or 3 days.

You said that you "will probably never get a match" given 10 years. This implies that you are generalising the math from a singular independent event to a series of independent events.

The chance of getting at least one match in 10 years = 1-.994^3650 = .9999999997.

99.99%

That's basically a certainty, but you claim this will never happen. You have not only been talking about the per-day chance.

The per-dance was never in dispute. We agree on the per-day chance.

 

[BurnedOut]

Please don't all caps me. We can do a debate bro punch down if you like, but that won't be productive.

Hahaha, i am laughing since yesterday over this conundrum

 

[BurnedOut]

Please don't all caps me. We can do a debate bro punch down if you like, but that won't be productive.

Hahaha, i am laughing since yesterday over this conundrum.

The chance of getting at least one match in 10 years = 1-.994^3650 = .9999999997.

99.99%

That's basically a certainty, but you claim this will never happen. You have not only been talking

I understood your point posts ago. I am not denying but I am trying to tell you absolutely random events are uncoupled from time's influence.

If suppose there is a real random number generator, is it ever possible for you to repeat even a single number? No. Similarly, suppose your chance of matching a single girl who is supposedly from an array of infinitely distinct girls is 0.6%, is it possible for you now or in the future or in 10 days to have a better chance of getting that girl?

 

[BurnedOut]

You said that you "will probably never get a match" given 10 years. This implies that you are generalising the math from a singular independent event to a series of independent events.

Yes. But the series is independent anyway, why would P change? That simply means that if 0.6 is for 1 and 0.6 is for 1000, it is 0.6 for 1000 as well 100000. Even a series of independent events, if and only if are consisted of completely distinct objects, reduce to N=1


The cases you are talking about contain independent events with same objects being used. That will definitely yield a measure. However i am talking about an independent event with distinct objects

 

[Hadoblado]

Fuck me what is going on? Every time I think we've got a diagnosis the patient coughs blood :S

So we agree that the overall chance increases with the sample size, but the daily chance remains the same?

Yes. But the series is independent anyway, why would P change? That simply means that if 0.6 is for 1 and 0.6 is for 1000, it is 0.6 for 1000 as well 100000. Even a series of independent events, if and only if are consisted of completely distinct objects, reduce to N=1

Then what does this mean? What observations do we disagree on? Why are you talking about time and blackjack and magical coins and gigolos if we don't even disagree?

 

[Rook]

1/100 per day means that in a 100 days i'm pretty certain to get a result, in a thousand days it becomes solid. why? 1/100 pd x1000 = a thousand chances. so if someone doesn't at least get a date after three years maybe they nurglish or they doing something wrong. and with this shit, you diversify, you don;t use a single platform and i'm sure there are platforms out there with smaller userbases and a more egalitarian atmosphere.

 

[Hadoblado]

You said that you "will probably never get a match" given 10 years. This implies that you are generalising the math from a singular independent event to a series of independent events.

Yes. But the series is independent anyway, why would P change? That simply means that if 0.6 is for 1 and 0.6 is for 1000, it is 0.6 for 1000 as well 100000. Even a series of independent events, if and only if are consisted of completely distinct objects, reduce to N=1


The cases you are talking about contain independent events with same objects being used. That will definitely yield a measure. However i am talking about an independent event with distinct objects

Can you summarise what belief I hold that is corrected by what you're saying?

 

[BurnedOut]

@Hadoblado

You and Dr Froyd:
P(match after 30 days) = 1 - ((1 - 0.06) * 30))

1 - 0.06 = rate of nonmatching
(1 - 0.06)*30 = rate of nonmatching for 30 days
1 - rate of nonmatching for 30 days = rate of matching for 30 days

As the sample size increases, chances matching increase.

Right?

 

[BurnedOut]

What i am saying -

Sample size stays the same throughout. Why? Because if you don't open the app, the sample disappears and you are given a new sample

Or

You are assigned a sample when you are on the app

Day 1 - 0.6% match
Day 2 - Same sample size because different girls - 0.6% match
Day 3 - Same sample size because different girls - 0.6% match
Day N - same sample size because different girls - 0.6% match

Formula - (1 - 0.94) * 30/30

You are not conducting a single experiment with N tries. You are conducting N experiments with 1 try.

If N experiments = N * 0.6
1 experiment = 0.6 x 1
Therefore, after N days, 0.6% probability of matching

That is gambler's fallacy

 

[BurnedOut]

1. That team has won the coin toss for the last three games. So, they are definitely going to lose the coin toss tonight.
2. That family has had three girl babies in a row. The next one is bound to be a boy.
3. The last time they spun the wheel, it landed on 12. So, it won't land on 12 this time.

4. Kevin has won the last five hands in the poker game. Chad thinks that there is no way that Kevin has another good hand, so he bets everything against Kevin.
5. The sports team has contended for the National Championship every year for the past five years, and they always lose in the final round. This year is going to be their year!
6. Maureen has gone on five job interviews this week and she hasn't had any offers. I think today is the day she will get an offer.
7. The gymnast has not fallen off of the balance beam in the past 10 meets. I wouldn't bet on her today-she is bound to run out of luck sometime.

They are conducting 1 experiment N times and assuming that they are conducting 1 experiment with N tries.

Different experiments always have different parameters. Therefore if there is no correlation among the outcomes, each experiment is equivalent to another

 

[Hadoblado]

@Hadoblado

You and Dr Froyd:
P(match after 30 days) = 1 - ((1 - 0.06) * 30))

1 - 0.06 = rate of nonmatching
(1 - 0.06)*30 = rate of nonmatching for 30 days
1 - rate of nonmatching for 30 days = rate of matching for 30 days

As the sample size increases, chances matching increase.

Right?

No.

1) ^ not *
2) and it's minus the chance of not matching.
3) And no bracket, that'll fuck it right up.

P(>0 match after n days) = 1-.994^n
P(>0 match after 30 days) = 1-.994^30 = 16.5%

If I jump on a dating site with a .6% daily match chance, I predict a 16.5% chance of at least one match after 30 days. On the morning of the 31st, I expect a .6% chance of at least one match on that day.

After a year can expect an 88.8% chance of at least one match.
After 10 years I expect a 99.99% chance of at least one match.

 

[BurnedOut]

Okay. My math is clearly worse than yours. Can you explain the formula?

 

[Rook]

if u have a hole near a lot of hopping marbles and the marbles have 1% chance to enter the hole per day then chances are after a year there will be a marble in the hole, simple as.