*** Coronavirus Mafia ***
- Thread starter cyfanatic13
- Start date
Keeping these two things in mind, I'm going to Vote Clonies to try and help michael out of a jam.
Hypothesis:
It doesn't matter statistically whether all the votes are on one person or spread out
Assumptions:
There are 23 remaining players and 1 of those is the AC
Everyone has the same chance to be the AC
Scenarios:
1) 22 votes for one person who happens to be the AC: 22 x (0.25) = 5.5 new mafia members - 1 old mafia member (AC) = 4.5 mafia added
There is a 1 in 23 chance that the above happens: 4.5 / 23 = 0.20 mafia added on average
2) 3 different players get 7 votes each, one of which is the AC: (7+1[assuming the AC votes for one of the other two]) x (0.25) = 2 new mafia members - (1 in 3 chance the AC is voted out) = 1.67 mafia add
There is a 3 in 23 chance the above happens: 1.67 x (3/23) = 0.22 mafia added on average
Other notes:
This isn't perfect because who current mafia votes for isn't accounted, but I don't have those numbers so I can't include it
Conclusion:
It doesn't matter whether the votes are spread out or all placed on one person.
Feel free to rip about my math during the peer review process.
I'm dead tonight either way, so if I pass it to a mafia member tonight then that's awfully convenient for the mafia.
I'm going to continue on my war path and
vote Cleaver
for what seems like the 24th time this game.
vote Cleaver
for what seems like the 24th time this game.
Not your fault at all. I guess I should've known better. But it was that NYT article you were asking for a snippet of. I don't think my post lasted long though so you might not have seen it.
Just as an FYI, you know you can clear cookies from their website to reset free views...
It was an coronavirus related article which is free, that's why I posted it. But nevertheless you shouldn't do it so I served my time.
Unofficial Vote Count
7 – Cleaver (cmjh 7:09 am) (Clonies 9:10 am) (dandy 9:31 am) (Fitzy 9:50 am) (MeowingCows 9:54 am) (CoKane 10:03 am) (andybernard 1:53 pm)
3 – Cy$ (mdk2isu 8:42 am) (Fitzy 8:42 am rescind 9:50 am) (cubs 8:58 am) (mj4cy 9:30 am)
2 – Clonies (Cleaver 9:45 am) (Ctown 1:19 pm)
1 – SCNCY (Cy$ 10:08 am)
7 – Cleaver (cmjh 7:09 am) (Clonies 9:10 am) (dandy 9:31 am) (Fitzy 9:50 am) (MeowingCows 9:54 am) (CoKane 10:03 am) (andybernard 1:53 pm)
3 – Cy$ (mdk2isu 8:42 am) (Fitzy 8:42 am rescind 9:50 am) (cubs 8:58 am) (mj4cy 9:30 am)
2 – Clonies (Cleaver 9:45 am) (Ctown 1:19 pm)
1 – SCNCY (Cy$ 10:08 am)
I rated his post a winner.
It's really an analysis of what type of risk to take:
Spread votes out (we in the industry call it isolation) = increased chance ONE person gets the virus but limit chance of epidemic
Place all the votes on a few = reduced chance of having someone get infected, but increased chance of an epidemic.
All-in-all, the mathematic cost-benefit is equal, spiker was spot on.
End of ghost input.
Well now, I retract my previous insult. If it's free, not sure what the issue is.
