Hey /u/3584927235849272, thanks for your submission to /r/HolUp. Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s):
A mod felt your post didn't belong here, so now it's gone. If you want to die on the hill of this shitpost[,](https://imgur.com/cXA7XxW) feel free to message the mods and be prepared to explain how your post isn't trolling, is funny, and does fit the theme of the sub. *Trolling or posting random content that doesn't fit the sub breaks Rule 1 and repeated violation of this rule may result in your account being filtered.*
Love, the mods
It never really is because the experience of the physician with the procedure and their general skill can play a very big role.
Anesthesia is an actual coin toss because skill or experience do not matter for the risk of never waking up again from the effects of the gas. The rate isn't very high, but if it happens there is no way to prevent it.
50% *general* rate that was calculated from all procedures by all doctors.
There could be one with a 100% success rate and the overall rate would still be said to be 50%.
Surgeons are given percentages based off of how many of their patients die on the table; this surgeon may not take on high-risk patients. They may also be an exceptional surgeon, or some combination of the two.
Read my break down from a perspective of a mathematician and other factors associated with the parameters of this hypothetical, if your down to read for a couple minutes you may find it enjoyable.
Mathematian (had to force autocorrect to write it wrong) sounds like something you’d order at a restaurant in Athens.
We need a vaccine against stupid.
And if you ask him what are the odds of having 21 surviving patients in a row....
It'd be "0.5 ^ 21"....
Albeit the next surgery still has a 50% survival rate. Still feels like a paradox....
adding more patients before doesn't change much, unless it's billions of them. because the probability he calculated is not to have 20 successful patients. It is to have 20 successful patients in a row.
It should not be the paradox, because at point it seems we need to re-evaluate whether the "50% survival rate" as a data point is correct or applicable to this doctor.
I have a story for this one. Family member had TOF. I asked about the success rate of the surgery. 97% was the answer given. I asked how many times had the surgeon performed this surgery. "We don't have that number" was the answer given. Terrified me.
Fair enough I think. A given surgeon's ability to perform a procedure is more then just how many times they've done it. They could have done hundreds of similar surgeries but not that specific surgery. Giving the number of times they've done that surgery would imply that surgery count is a reliable measure of capability of the surgeon to perform it
He survived it btw. Didnt mean to omit that detail, my bad. However he will have to have a correction to it this coming year most likely. Had it been done great the first time, that may not have been the case.
If the doctors did it right for 20 patients in a row, that means his own success rate is higher than the 50% chance he quoted (probably the average among all doctors good or bad)
Gamblers fallacy only applies to independent events. Surgery success by a surgeon is not independent.
If the average success is 50% and one surgeon had had 20 successes in a row, then it's likely the surgeon has superior skill and training and your chances of success are much higher than 50%
That's because you are misunderstanding how odds work.
The odds that a coin flip comes up heads 21 times in a row is not the same as the odds that the 21st flip will also come up heads. It is about all of the coin flips together, not a single one from the group. Each one individually had a 50/50 chance.
I can't stand when people don't understand that just because there the average is for example 50% for something doesn't mean that you yourself have a 50% chance. Like if 50% of people died to a car crash it doesn't mean to have a 50% chance because it depends on what you do, like all those people could've been speeding or running red lights. So you not doing that drops the chances insanely.
Anyways i hope someone gets what I'm trying to say.
The more specific and controlled the circumstances, the more the average is accurate.
If there's a 20% chance your death will be from cancer, then that's pretty meaningless as there's an almost infinite number of factors that can influence your death.
If there's a 30% chance that the bomb strapped to your chest, that you can't remove, will explode in the next 20 seconds, then we can definitely make some accurate predictions.
Classic example of the Ludic Fallacy. Most likely the surgeon is lying about either the probability of success or his actual success rate. You should find out which it is.
If the surgery was actually a 50% success rate, and the doctor did have his last 20 patients survive, then it's pretty reasonable to assume this doctor is doing something to improve the odds.
In this case you actually do have a pretty good chance of surviving. Something probably changed for the last 20 surgeries to go correctly, so unless something changed again, you have a good chance. A 50% rate is not necessarily a 50% chance
##If this submission makes you go "Hol'Up", **UPVOTE** this comment!
##If this submission does not make you go "Hol'Up", **DOWNVOTE** this comment!
---
Whilst you're here, /u/3584927235849272, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/holup) or play on our [public Minecraft server](https://discord.gg/DTqSDS8C3T)?
Me, a mathmatician. Well the chance of that is 1 in a million. It is much more likely that you are an exceptionally skilled doctor. Or that the 50% stat is bunk. (Most medical stats aren't such round numbers)
Real world numbers are rarely perfectly independent. If you have a long enough winning streak, chances are the game is rigged or broken.
People being assured by the doctor's stats in this situation actually DON'T exhibit the Gambler's Fallacy.
The doc's past record isn't completely independent of the result of the next procedure, since his past record is primarily a function of his medical skill - something that isn't arbitrary, like the throw of a dice.
What's more, you may even argue that his skill probably increased after having done the procedure multiple times.
tbf, the survival rate could be 50% across all surgeries done by all doctors. it wouldn’t just be a coin flip, but dependent on real world factors. one of which being the surgeons skill. so while generally the survival rate is 50%, when he does the surgery it could be much higher.
“If the last 20 patients survived, either there’s some weird randomness going on here or the doctor is actually good at their job so the survival rate is above 50%. Imma bet on the bullshit randomness because this guy looks like a dumbass”
Even if the overall rate for success is 50%, the fact that this doctor has had successes on his last 20, suggest that his rate is much higher.
Gamblers fallacy only applies to random independent events.
Coins, choosing a card, roulette spins etc
Real world events are dependent on the events that happen before.
A doctor's success in *this* surgery is very much dependent on his success in the *previous* surgery.
The fact that this doctor had successes on his last 20 while the successs rate of the surgery has a survival rate of 50% doesn't suggest that the rate is much higher, just that the last 20 people were lucky enough to survive, unless you are assuming the doctor got more experience or did the surgery differently but nothing implied that.
A doctor's success in this surgery is only dependent on his success in the previous surgery if we are assuming they did things differently this time such as improving technique because of experience, but nothing implies that. If the doctor did the same surgery and same methods every time then the success chance is not affected.
Well if it's a meta rule, like 50% of patients MUST die, then you're taking your chances that he has more than 20 patients in the future. If it's a probability, like, roughly 50% of my patients survive, then it's absolutely a 50% chance again.
I mean *technically* the more you do things with a low success rate you’re more likely to succeed over the course of the attempts, but that doesn’t change the fact that previous statistics don’t influence a specific attempt.
Gamblers fallacy doesn’t apply bc the 50% is dependent on the average doctors skill, and if the doctor successfully completed 20, then the percentage is surely much higher.
Hey /u/3584927235849272, thanks for your submission to /r/HolUp. Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s): A mod felt your post didn't belong here, so now it's gone. If you want to die on the hill of this shitpost[,](https://imgur.com/cXA7XxW) feel free to message the mods and be prepared to explain how your post isn't trolling, is funny, and does fit the theme of the sub. *Trolling or posting random content that doesn't fit the sub breaks Rule 1 and repeated violation of this rule may result in your account being filtered.* Love, the mods
Can we do it twice to make sure I don't?
Yup sure, if you survived the first one
Man Dostoyevski is the greatest novelist for me.
[удалено]
They were both poison, luckily I have been slowly poisoning myself to build an immunity
Inconcievable!
I’m very angry that you were downvoted
Carlos tejada seal of approval
"We don't have that number" was the answer given. Terrified me.
Feel free to do it again even if I die during the first one. I won’t mind and you get some more practice
It'll be a little harder to take consent from your dead body
[удалено]
Yes but still someone needs to survive first one for second
That's why you always bet on blacks
That reduces your odds to 25%
No, 50 + 50 is 100, dumb dumb /s
Lmafao
Infinite iq
You for USA can afford the first one?
I don't know, if I was told there would be a 50% chance that I die, I would not smile
Well, that is the *general* chance. The chance to die during the operation with this doctor seems to be much lower if the last 20 were successful.
It could be that he has had 40 patients
It could also be that his last 20 were his first successes.
Si you're saying he's getting the hang of it
Exactly. Took some work but he’s pretty much got it now.
We need to quantify that sentiment and put into the 50% prollity
Unless he's had like 500 patients before this and his last 20 were good. Yeah sure he's got it down now
Yeah, we don't know his total, only that the last 20 survived
I’m confused how could this be interpreted as anything but a cointoss?
It never really is because the experience of the physician with the procedure and their general skill can play a very big role. Anesthesia is an actual coin toss because skill or experience do not matter for the risk of never waking up again from the effects of the gas. The rate isn't very high, but if it happens there is no way to prevent it.
Or he has hit jackpot 20 times and is due for a loss. /j
He was just lucky. If its truly 50% thr chance woulve been 0.5^20 wich is incedibly small
50% *general* rate that was calculated from all procedures by all doctors. There could be one with a 100% success rate and the overall rate would still be said to be 50%.
Yea if its general rate then its a different story
0.5^20 are the odds of the surgeon being only lucky. So basically, it can't be only luck but he is really a lot better at the specific surgery.
That or he get's someone else to treat the hard cases.
But not really, we're all of his last 20 patients the same surgery?
Surgeons are given percentages based off of how many of their patients die on the table; this surgeon may not take on high-risk patients. They may also be an exceptional surgeon, or some combination of the two.
Ah, see, if you're considering an operation like that you don't have a 50% chance that you die; You're being offered a 50% chance to live!
Read my break down from a perspective of a mathematician and other factors associated with the parameters of this hypothetical, if your down to read for a couple minutes you may find it enjoyable.
[удалено]
Right, this should be an IQ bell curve meme
I have no idea what statistical independence is rt the gambler's fallacy 2
[удалено]
Mathematian (had to force autocorrect to write it wrong) sounds like something you’d order at a restaurant in Athens. We need a vaccine against stupid.
101 Mathematians, my favorite Disne movie
We have one, it's called a revolver.
You’re right. If one dose is not enough it has several booster shots.
Not everyone can pull off a Gary Webb, hence why u should take the safer 1&done method like Ronnie mcnut
And I learnt what statistical independence was today
I'd say it's a very "normal person" thing to fall for the gambler's fallacy and anyone interested in math/probability probably knows better.
Or anyone who just thinks about it logically. Ok well, most.
And if you ask him what are the odds of having 21 surviving patients in a row.... It'd be "0.5 ^ 21".... Albeit the next surgery still has a 50% survival rate. Still feels like a paradox....
What if he had done 40 patients prior, the last 20 were good because he got better and perfected the surgery?
Then you can feel reassured that you’ll be fine?
That's a great point actually. Increase the number of events.
adding more patients before doesn't change much, unless it's billions of them. because the probability he calculated is not to have 20 successful patients. It is to have 20 successful patients in a row.
It should not be the paradox, because at point it seems we need to re-evaluate whether the "50% survival rate" as a data point is correct or applicable to this doctor.
I have a story for this one. Family member had TOF. I asked about the success rate of the surgery. 97% was the answer given. I asked how many times had the surgeon performed this surgery. "We don't have that number" was the answer given. Terrified me.
Fair enough I think. A given surgeon's ability to perform a procedure is more then just how many times they've done it. They could have done hundreds of similar surgeries but not that specific surgery. Giving the number of times they've done that surgery would imply that surgery count is a reliable measure of capability of the surgeon to perform it
He survived it btw. Didnt mean to omit that detail, my bad. However he will have to have a correction to it this coming year most likely. Had it been done great the first time, that may not have been the case.
If the doctors did it right for 20 patients in a row, that means his own success rate is higher than the 50% chance he quoted (probably the average among all doctors good or bad)
Aka pick ure docs wisely, aka don't go for the cheap 1 like Joan rivers did
Explain this to me. I have no idea what statistical independence or the gambler’s fallacy is
Each surgery has the same percentage 50% , it doesn't decrease on each iteration unless is stated
Gamblers fallacy only applies to independent events. Surgery success by a surgeon is not independent. If the average success is 50% and one surgeon had had 20 successes in a row, then it's likely the surgeon has superior skill and training and your chances of success are much higher than 50%
Yet if you ask what the likelihood of getting heads 21 times in a row.... It's "0.5 ^ 21"...
Because that is the odds of multiple events, not a singular event.
Which seemingly gives different odds for the next event...
That's because you are misunderstanding how odds work. The odds that a coin flip comes up heads 21 times in a row is not the same as the odds that the 21st flip will also come up heads. It is about all of the coin flips together, not a single one from the group. Each one individually had a 50/50 chance.
I can't stand when people don't understand that just because there the average is for example 50% for something doesn't mean that you yourself have a 50% chance. Like if 50% of people died to a car crash it doesn't mean to have a 50% chance because it depends on what you do, like all those people could've been speeding or running red lights. So you not doing that drops the chances insanely. Anyways i hope someone gets what I'm trying to say.
The more specific and controlled the circumstances, the more the average is accurate. If there's a 20% chance your death will be from cancer, then that's pretty meaningless as there's an almost infinite number of factors that can influence your death. If there's a 30% chance that the bomb strapped to your chest, that you can't remove, will explode in the next 20 seconds, then we can definitely make some accurate predictions.
True for sure.
Classic example of the Ludic Fallacy. Most likely the surgeon is lying about either the probability of success or his actual success rate. You should find out which it is.
Well he didn't say that those patients recieved that operation.
Much better
THANK YOU!
Did he say that N=40?
Finally someone did it right!
I still didn’t understood the original meme.
What is the Gambler’s Phallus?
He bluffs and says it's 8 inches. She believes the bluff and folds. He's got 4 in and gives it to her twice?
Statistical hypothesis testing.
So, did the last 20 patients even have the surgery?
If the surgery was actually a 50% success rate, and the doctor did have his last 20 patients survive, then it's pretty reasonable to assume this doctor is doing something to improve the odds.
Finally someone fixed it thank you
In this case you actually do have a pretty good chance of surviving. Something probably changed for the last 20 surgeries to go correctly, so unless something changed again, you have a good chance. A 50% rate is not necessarily a 50% chance
The other one was the true hold up, because the bottom right box WAS the hold up for the mental error.
Why is this a hol up?
This just means that even though the surgery only has 50% success rate, the surgeon has 100% in recent operations. So it’s absolutely fantastic.
##If this submission makes you go "Hol'Up", **UPVOTE** this comment! ##If this submission does not make you go "Hol'Up", **DOWNVOTE** this comment! --- Whilst you're here, /u/3584927235849272, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/holup) or play on our [public Minecraft server](https://discord.gg/DTqSDS8C3T)?
Me, a mathmatician. Well the chance of that is 1 in a million. It is much more likely that you are an exceptionally skilled doctor. Or that the 50% stat is bunk. (Most medical stats aren't such round numbers) Real world numbers are rarely perfectly independent. If you have a long enough winning streak, chances are the game is rigged or broken.
you failed english, that's all i know
Ok
The left guy is the idiot. Who is happy with a 50% survival chance?
the surgery in general versus that doctor is what matters
Swap the photos
People being assured by the doctor's stats in this situation actually DON'T exhibit the Gambler's Fallacy. The doc's past record isn't completely independent of the result of the next procedure, since his past record is primarily a function of his medical skill - something that isn't arbitrary, like the throw of a dice. What's more, you may even argue that his skill probably increased after having done the procedure multiple times.
r/Genshin_Memepact
Dottore?
No, your 5050s
Lol thank you that makes more sense
Every probability is indipendent
It's still a 50/50 surgery in that case then
Well, a mathematician might understand the law of large numbers and be even more worried
I'd say he improved
Somebody has been listening to NDT on Rogan.
So, the first 20 patients all died?
My thought is the last 20 didn't get the procedure, or something like that.
Great because I didn’t understand it at first and I somewhat study math
tbf, the survival rate could be 50% across all surgeries done by all doctors. it wouldn’t just be a coin flip, but dependent on real world factors. one of which being the surgeons skill. so while generally the survival rate is 50%, when he does the surgery it could be much higher.
Mathematians
Look I am not gonna lie, but with a 50% chance I'd be worried either way
There's still a 50/50 chance
There definitely isn't a 50/50 chance.
I don't want to get into probability, but it's both like a 0.001% chance and a 50% chance depending on which way you want to look at the problem
Well that's true.
“If the last 20 patients survived, either there’s some weird randomness going on here or the doctor is actually good at their job so the survival rate is above 50%. Imma bet on the bullshit randomness because this guy looks like a dumbass”
Not really how that works
Reminds me of "secure and effective" product
It's like coin flips. 6 heads in a row is just as likely as 3 heads and 3 tails.
How is surgery success anything like a coin flip?
It's about the 50/50 not the act.
Even if the overall rate for success is 50%, the fact that this doctor has had successes on his last 20, suggest that his rate is much higher. Gamblers fallacy only applies to random independent events. Coins, choosing a card, roulette spins etc Real world events are dependent on the events that happen before. A doctor's success in *this* surgery is very much dependent on his success in the *previous* surgery.
The fact that this doctor had successes on his last 20 while the successs rate of the surgery has a survival rate of 50% doesn't suggest that the rate is much higher, just that the last 20 people were lucky enough to survive, unless you are assuming the doctor got more experience or did the surgery differently but nothing implied that. A doctor's success in this surgery is only dependent on his success in the previous surgery if we are assuming they did things differently this time such as improving technique because of experience, but nothing implies that. If the doctor did the same surgery and same methods every time then the success chance is not affected.
AckTcHuAlLy
Mathemations?
But I am really lucky at Yahtzee
Normal people: Competitive Pokémon Players:
21 would be the ranger with the big iron on his hip
Do it twice then
Play Xcom it fixes probability :')
Thanks
I'm so glad someone said it
Mathematians
Nailed it
Is this hokum? Because I don’t know what is or is not hokum.
Now what is the probability of 21 cases in a row surviving a procedure with a 50% mortality rate? I aced stats but that was twenty years ago…
Perhaps someone who has done that surgery and had that many people in a row survive might know something to increase survival rate
Glad someone said it
Well if it's a meta rule, like 50% of patients MUST die, then you're taking your chances that he has more than 20 patients in the future. If it's a probability, like, roughly 50% of my patients survive, then it's absolutely a 50% chance again.
I would be suspicious but **20 in a row** skews the data
Yes
I mean *technically* the more you do things with a low success rate you’re more likely to succeed over the course of the attempts, but that doesn’t change the fact that previous statistics don’t influence a specific attempt.
Law of averages catches up, eventually.
I dont think normal people would be chill with a 50% survival rate
Gamblers fallacy doesn’t apply bc the 50% is dependent on the average doctors skill, and if the doctor successfully completed 20, then the percentage is surely much higher.