![latest[3].png](https://i.imgur.com/0Y2N87j.jpg "latest[3].png")
okay so if fireblast has a 10% chance to burn, and a 85% chance to hit
what is the actual chance that you'll burn a target?
850%
100% when my opponent is using it, it'll probably get a crit too
Can't you do grade school math? 85% x 0,1 you idiot. 8,5%
>>25935927
8.5%
>>25935955
>,
I never got why eurofags use a comma instead of a period for the decimal. What's up with that? Have they ever told you why? I'm curious.
Or is it not a eurofag thing and I'm just confused?
>>25935927
10%
If you miss you never had a chance to burn to begin with. Stop being stupid op.
>>25935957
don't you mean 9? :^)
>>25936011
Because we are superior and a simple minded pleb like yourself cannot fully comprehend our usage of symbols.
>>25936055
this
RNG operates on separate calculation tables
>>25936055
>>25936093
>I have no idea how probability works
>>25936076
Whole numbers essentially end with decimal notation. If you use a period, there's an analogue between sentence construction and the number's formating. Same can be said for comma usage.
>>25936113
If you miss the 85% chance to hit it never generated the 10% chance to burn.
Probability means nothing in the eyes of the RNG Lord.
>>25936145
That's not how it FUCKING WORKS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
>>25936145
Monty Hall doesnt like you.
>>25936011
You finish a sentence with a period. You don't with a comma. Same with numbers. Not so hard to understand or are americucks this triggered that nobody besides them use periods?
>>25936145
>If you miss the 85% chance
yes, that's included in the total 8.5% chance to burn
P(A) = P(Fire Blast hits) = 0.85
P(B|A) = P(Burn given that Fire Blast hits) = 0.1
P(A and B) = P(Fire Blast hits and burn) = P(B) = P(Burns) = 0.85*0.1 = 0.085
>>25936193
Except you retards use it every 3 digits. It makes more sense to use a period for decimals because it marks the ends of the whole number and the beginning of the fraction. Whereas for 8,000,000 it is merely for ease of reading.
>>25936193
100,001 is this one hundred thousand and one or one hundred and one one thousandth?
>>25936193
So why do you write 1.234.567,999 ? Face it, your system is completely illogical.
Commas make sense for thousands separators, just like commas separate parts of the same sentence. But periods are a more major separation, so it separates the whole number from the decimal.
>>25936011
It's a eurofag thing I think, except for Britain, who uses the correct system like America and most of the world.
>>25936193
You finish the whole number with a period and then have your fraction. Much like a sentence, a comma binds two related things together and a period ends the thought. A comma joins integer groups of thousands while a period marks the new idea of decimals
>>25935954
This
Even more so with Scald
>>25936338
Do calculators use commas for decimals?
>>25936338
Wait you seriously use commas for decimals, except on large number where you switch to using periods? That's even more fucked up than I thought. At least be consistent.
So, /vp/.
Let's say your Pokemon is paralyzed, confused, and attracted.
What is the chance that it will be able to successfully attack next turn?
>>25936254
>>25936281
>>25936294
>ever using periods while writing numbers
I've only seen that in english. In european languages I only see small spaces every three digits, if anything.
>>25936400
The irony of yanks complaining about this when their date system is objectively incorrect is hilarious.
>>25936404
o% because i just switched out
>>25936412
>only spaces
then how do you know when fractional digits start?
>>25935955
Hey fag, tell me in words what number this is:
23,000,865
>>25935927
>>25936011
Fuck, you really are stupid.
Are you that guy that claimed X at the start of words is pronounced Z in all languages?
>>25936423
april thirteenth, twenty-sixteen.
or do you actually say the thirteenth of april, twenty-sixteen?
>>25936404
0.1875unless it snaps out of confusion on that turn
>>25936011
Wait until you see how we do divisions.
>>25936404
supposing it's a move with perfect accuracy, 18.75%
>>25936456
Twenty-three million, eight hundred and sixty-five
>>25936466
Most non-English speaking countries would phrase it that way. Even other Germanic languages use "day, month, year".
>>25936510
Burger division:
330/10= 33
Or
330
÷ 10
----------
33
>>25935927
>I am still at a middle school level of math: The thread
>>25936466
Yes the latter, but I don't think that's relevant. Saying something and writing something are two different things. You don't say "four thirteen twenty sixteen".
>>25936456
jackie chan
>>25936619
actually yes some people do
>>25936717
>>25936619
useful when quoting a written date to someone
"two sixteen sixteen"
vs
"february sixteenth, twenty sixteen"
>mfw fire blast had 30% in g1
There's a 50% chance retard, it either happens or it doesn't
>it's a system usage pissing match thread
On a related note there was one thread that calculated the lowest percent chance to hit something but I can't find it.
>>25936055
If you see the move hit, you know there is a ten percent chance that your foe will be burned by the end pf the turn
>>25935927
If you haven't used the move yet but plan on doing so, you know there's 8,5% chance for the same outcome by the end of the turn,
>>25935927
>yfw when every fire move doesn't has a 100% chance to burn
>>25936238
I like you.
>>25935927
For Sun and Moon they should introduce the Chaos Fire Blast which has a power of 500, has 100% to OHKO, 100% to Burn and 100% to Freeze. It has 5 PP and is the signature move of Mega Primal Hatreduggon the Dark/Fire/Steel Pokemon who uses the power of Darkness to kill his opponents and also not listen to his parents argue.
8.5%
>>25936912
Or you could just do 85% x 10% rather than doing out a whole probability tree.
>>25936899
so edgy
>>25935927
>>25936055
You have an 85% chance to hit and a 15% chance of missing.
If you miss you can't burn, so that 15% can be ignored.
If you hit on your 85%, you need to pass an additional, separate RNG check, which is a 10% chance. So, you multiply the two separate probabilities together: 85% * 10% = 8.5% chance of burning and 85% * 90% = 76.5% of not burning.
In summary:
15.0% chance of missing (and not burning, obviously)
76.5% chance of hitting, but not burning
8.5% chance of hitting and burning
Note that the sum of all possibilities is 100%:
15.0% + 76.5% + 8.5% = 100%
If you go by the logic of >>25936055 then you get
15.0% chance of missing (and not burning)
10.0% chance of burning
90.0% chance of not burning
15.0% + 10.0% + 90.0% = 115% which doesn't make any sense.
>>25935935
I laughed
Fire Blast will hit around 85 times if you use it 100 times.
Of all those Fire Blasts that hit each has 10% chance to burn, which means your foe gets burned around 8-9 times.
It doesn't matter if the mechanics use separate tables to roll the chances, if you use Fire Blast 100 times, your opponent will get burn around 8 or 9 times. 15 of those attacks will miss the target, around 76-77 attacks will just do damage.
>>25936011
>eurofags use a comma instead of a period for the decimal
More like the rest of the world. US Americans are the only contrarians.
>>25937008
but you know that in these 10% are 90% and in 85% are 15% which are giving 100% for two separate scenarios?
Im not math fag but seems you have problems if you can't count it separately...
because these are clearly separated results
really...
>>25937409
He explained it right though. I don't see the problem.
>>25935927
It's a 50/50 it either happens or it don't
>>25937409
in5/8 pps you have RANDOM chances to hit and burn so all math there going into nowhere because you will never get right result so asking for chances there is fucking stupid
>>25937434
but how does it's even right? where it makes any sense? you clearly have 10% chances for burn, that's all, you can met 50% conditions in both or you can hit 1% in both it have nothing to do with the right result
>inb4 Monty Hall
>>25937471
Nigga, the fuck are you saying? Am I being trolled?
>you clearly have 10% chances for burn
The chances that you will hit a Fireblast is 85%. The chances you won't is 15%. Together, that adds up to 100% since they are two mutually exclusive events.
Separately, you have a 10% chance that, when a Fireblast hits, it will burn. 0.85 * 0.10 = 0.085, which when multiplied by 100 to get the percentage, comes up to 8.5%.
So now, the former 85% chance that you would hit a Fireblast can be separated into two events: one, a Fireblast hits and it burns:
8.5%
Two, a Fireblast hits and it doesn't burn:
85% - 8.5% = 76.5%.
A Fireblast doesn't hit at all (again):
15%
76.5% + 15% + 8.5% = 100%. All three events (two of them which we formerly considered one single event, now separated into two) are mutually exclusive and they add up to 100 percent. Therefore, our probability for each event is correct.
Not even trying to be an ass, go back to school and learn probabilities.
>>25937550
but this makes zero sense... how...
you can't count something that can be 50% in 85% or more or less it's just pure luck... the game is determining result right after you chose the move so it gives random chances for anything...
>>25937654
>the game is determining result right after you chose the move so it gives random chances for anything
RNG in the game generates a number between 0 and 1. The game code makes sure that 85% of the possible results from that random generation of a number (say, if the number generated is between 0.15 and 1) gives you one alternative (it hits), while the other 15% of the results (between 0 and 0.15) gives you another (it doesn't hit).
>>25937654
>>25937471
>you can't count something that can be 50% in 85% or more or less it's just pure luck... the game is determining result right after you chose the move so it gives random chances for anything...
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Are you implying that because it's random, it can't be quantified with numbers?
I especially don't get where your 50% is coming from, none of the probabilities involved in Fire Blast are 50%
>>25937471
>you clearly have 10% chances for burn
No, you don't even get to TRY to burn unless you hit them first.
>you can met 50% conditions in both or you can hit 1% in both it have nothing to do with the right result
None of the involved probabilities are 50% or 1%, unless you can explain what these numbers mean I have no idea what you're trying to argue.
>>25937754
in 85% and 15% you have 100% of hit the same for burn, you have 90% chances for not burning at all, maybe Im fucking idiot but I really don't get how you even get the results... for me it's just asspulled ,I tried to count it but this makes zero sense...
your result is telling me that I have less chances to hit and burn than at the beginning... how this is even logical?!
>/vp/ attempts to do math
god i fucking hate you fucks i am a doctor in probability and it's fucking 8.5%reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>25937862
only me because I don't understand how he get lower result for success than the game is stating
this looks like asspull, for example with no guard we have 100% of hitting but still 10% of status condition, so still we have to count how many chances we have with pp's and 10%
8pp=10% in each so this is the main problem
>>25937914
At this point, I am convinced this is an attempt to troll.
>>25937945
why?
you have pp's you have 100% for hit, so tell me the right result based on pp's & 10%
>>25937851
Think of it like this:
The game needs to run two different probability calculations: one for hitting, and one for burning.
Hitting is 85% versus missing which is 15%
Burning is 10% versus not burning which is 90%
Since there are 2 different calculations, each with 2 results, if you do both of them there are 2*2 = 4 results.
If you need to see them written out, it's like this
Hitting, burning
Hitting, not burning
Missing, burning
Missing, not burning
You can calculate the probability of each of these by multiplying the probabilities together, as follows
Hitting, burning = 85% * 10% = 8.5%
Hitting, not burning = 85% * 90% = 76.5%
Missing, burning = 15% * 10% = 1.5%
Missing, not burning = 15% * 90% = 13.5%
OP wants to know the probability of the opponent ending up being burned when you select Fire Blast. In two of these calculations, the opponent is burned, in two they are not. To solve OP's problem, we only care about the ones where they are burned.
Hitting, burning = 85% * 10% = 8.5%
Missing, burning = 15% * 10% = 1.5%
HOWEVER, there is one more caveat - in Pokemon, you cannot inflict the opponent with a status condition (or other secondary effect) if the attack misses. So even if the game calculates that you would successfully burn them, if you don't hit them, it doesn't actually happen.
In other words, in the case of:
Missing, burning = 15% * 10% = 1.5%
The opponent DOESN'T get burned
So, we've eliminated every possibility except:
Hitting, burning = 85% * 10% = 8.5%
Which gives us the final answer of 8.5%
If you're still confused, let me know where I lost you in this explanation, and I'll explain it.
>>25936404
How about all that, but at -6 acc and the enemy is at +6 evasion?
>>25937976
With noguard, each of your 8 uses has their own 10% chance to burn. The probability of all eight burning then is .1^8= .000001%
>>25938025
don't waste your time, I will just try solve this alone, maybe I will realize how does it's logical
why math always must be such fucking problem sigh...
>thank you for your hard work
>>25936215
Do not anger the RNG lords or forever will you be cursed with bad iv shit mons.
I have lived my life honoring the RNG lord. From the start of the big bang to my very first shiny. He has done nothing but bless me.
You should repent for your sins and worship him now. He may bless you as well.
>>25937914
>many chances we have with pp's
We aren't taking PP into account - OP just wants to know the probability that using Fire Blast one time will leave the enemy burned.
That number is 8.5%, since the game does a 85% hit chance and THEN it separately will do a 10% burn chance, so the total probability is 8.5%.
>for example with no guard we have 100% of hitting but still 10% of status condition
If we had a Pokemon with No Guard use Fire Blast, then it would have a 100% * 10% = 10% chance of hitting. This is a special case, however, since burn chance will depend partially on accuracy and No Guard modifies accuracy.
If you're curious what the probability of burning your opponent if you use Fire Blast on them 8 times (which is the max PP for Fire Blast), that's a little more difficult to calculate.
The way you do it is actually by calculating the probability they WON'T be burned after 8 Fire Blasts, and then subtracting that from 100%.
After one time, they have a 100% - 8.5% = 91.5% chance of not being burned.
After two times, they have to succeed this chance twice in a row, or 91.5% * 91.5% = (91.5%)^2 = 83.72% (roughly)
By the same logic, to not be burned after 8 times, they have a 91.5% * 91.5% * 91.5% * 91.5% * 91.5% * 91.5% * 91.5% * 91.5% = (91.5%)^8 = 49.13%
Subtract this from 100% and you get a 50.87% of burning them if you use all of your Fire Blasts.
>>25938123
you are amazing, Im sorry Im shot from math, after I learn chinese I will try do math ;<
>>25936740
I cannot get my head around how stupid and irrelevant your argument is. If you used the proper format those people would just read "thirteen four twenty sixteen" instead.
>>25938123
Yet the odds don't work like that.
You could use 1000% fire blasts and still not burn your opponent.
You are most likely one of those faggots who calculate the odds of finding shiny eggs. When the odds when MMing will always be 1/512 for each individual egg no matter how many you hatch.
Just like fire blast has a 85% chance to hit then a separate 10% chance to burn.
>>25936412
this. periods are for women
>>25938265
L
O
N
D
O
N
>>25937050
Nope. Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Switzerland Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States all use period. That's over 50% of the world.
>>25938265
>Called a radix point
>Not a point
??????
>>25938263
My calculation was correct.
>You could use 1000% fire blasts and still not burn your opponent
That is right. That is consistent with my reasoning.
Perhaps I was unclear with my wording.
When I said
>you get a 50.87% of burning them if you use all of your Fire Blasts.
I meant the following: After using Fire Blast 8 times, there is a 50.87 that at least one of them burned the opponent.
Perhaps you were confused and thought I was making a gambler's fallacy - I'm sorry if I was unclear, hopefully my explanation clears that up. Let me know if there's still something you think I'm doing wrong.
Incidentally, I was curious what the probability would be after 1000 Fire Blasts of at least one of them burning: It's 1 - (2.64 * 10^39) = 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999984
So while it's possible to miss 1000 consecutive Fire Blasts, it's not terribly likely
>>25938104
in general, when i want to solve proba questions, i ALWAYS make the probability tree. not necessarily to get the answer, but it's easier for other to check for me where's the mistake. good luck... for any endeavor you pursue
>>25938263
i saw so many people that said after after about 2700 wild encounters, we will find a shiny. which is of course false (theoretically)
>>25938355
I meant you could use 1000 fire blasts and still not get a burn. No idea why it auto corrected a % in there.
Anyway the odds work like this. The odds are always gonna be the % chance originally given for each individual act. Repeating the act does mean you have a better % chance to hit that odd but their is no math that can calculate randomness in accuracy.
Just like flipping a coin the odds are 50/50 but that doesnt mean it will be 50/50 because chances to work like that.
So after the 85% chance you have for the move to hit it will generate a new 10% chance for it to burn. You can not calculate anything beyond that with accuracy. It only becomes probability at that point.
>>25938549
>Anyway the odds work like this. The odds are always gonna be the % chance originally given for each individual act. Repeating the act does mean you have a better % chance to hit that odd but their is no math that can calculate randomness in accuracy.
Yes, there is math that can do this - it's a simple application of the multiplicative principle in probability - which works since the two moves burning are independent variables.
It's easier to show in a picture, so I threw one together in paint real quick.
It illustrates the possible outcomes of two Fire Blasts - the red cells represent outcomes that result in the target being burned.
If you add these together you get the probability of at least one out of two Fire Blasts hitting, i.e. the probability the foe will end up burned.
This will be equal to 100% - the remaining cell (since the cells must add up to 100%) - which is the strategy I used in my original post.
The same reasoning here can be extrapolated to any number of Fire Blasts.
>>25936238
This is super wrong because it implies burning could happen without the move hitting.
>>25938904
Jk looked over the math again and it's totally right. Sorry about that.
>>25936438
Your 1,000,000.25 becomes 1 000 000,25
>stone edge has an 80% chance to hit and a 12.5% critical hit chance
>that means the opponent will always hit and crit me
>>25938044
on garchomp holding bright powder in sand
and you have hustle
and you use dynamic punch
and it's a triple battle and the other 4 things are shaymin-s and they all air slash you
and garchomp uses iron head
>>25940872
In Canada it'd be 1 000 000.25 So a mix of the two I guess. Isn't this a pokemon board?
>>25936456
Wtf were you trying to prove with this? Literally everywhere in the world reads this as >>25936532
How fucking stupid are you?
>>25936423
>their date system is objectively incorrect
It's like this for the purpose of automatic sorting. January 4th comes before February 1st, so the non-retarded thing to do is to sort it as 1.4 and 2.1 so that January 4th goes first. The reverse of this is pretty much useless unless you're too young to understand whether days or months are longer.
Years are last because they're assumed to be a sufficiently long period of time that you don't need to include them most of the time and as a result it's easier to cut them off at the end.
YYYY-MM-DD is optimal, and MM-DD-YYYY is good for everyday purposes. DD-MM-YYYY is retarded 100% of the time and sacrifices all practicality for some trifling amount of useless symbolic elegance.
>>25936011
If it makes you feel better, i'm european and I prefer periods to commas.
>>25942421
>>25940872
holy shit I'm glad I live in USA.
>>25942549
>>25936011
Both point and comma are widespread around the world.
blue: point
green: comma
My advice is to just use a space as thousand separators in order to avoid misunderstandings.
>>25936113
probability only matters beore a choice is made. Otherwise it was useless information that turned out to be never unless you take the shot again in which your statistic number is again relevant before being chnaged to either 100% or 0% after the event
>>25943684
what does the red ones use
>>25944201
According so Wikipedia some countries use an apostrophe (eg 3'142) so maybe it's those.
10%
pokemon will only calculate it once you have a confirmed hit
>>25942549
>YYYY-MM-DD is optimal, and MM-DD-YYYY is good for everyday purposes.
No, it's still objectively wrong because it only works a small part of the time. YYYY-MM-DD is the only option for technical use.
DD/MM/YYYY makes sense for casual use though, because the significance is in order of importance. If you're giving a date to someone you start with the day ("the nineteenth") because by default you assume the current month/year. If it's further away you add the month ("the nineteenth of May") and so on.
jesus fucking christ these kinds of fucking arguments again
just fugging accept that different people do different things differently and whatever is more convenient for them
also,
>fire blast
>ever
>>25944201
it's called a momayyez, it's kind of a comma just that it doesn't go below the line
mommayez 1٫23 vs 1,23 (comma
