We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BEWARE Increased premium after NO FAULT accident
Comments
-
-
............ I have seen stats showing people with a non-fault claim are more likely to have a fault claim than those who haven't. .................Whether someone has been hit or not does not affect their likelihood of making a claim, in exactly the same way that having a fault claim and causing an accident don't make you any more or less likely in having claims in future.........
Haven't I been saying the second view?0 -
starrystarry wrote: »1 in 6 !!!!!!!
Experience from the die I was handed on my rugby tour tells me that isn't true. It landed on 6 about 2 times out of 3 over the many times I had to roll it over the four days and landed on the 1 face 1 time in 30, I somehow doubt all faces had a 1 in 6 chance of coming up. I think my results were probably representative of the distribution, I had added weight to the theory by the stifled giggles of the tour committee when it kept happening.0 -
Back to the dice question though for starrystarry, when they're awake again.
I agree, if you role a dice, you have a 1 in 6 chance of getting any number.
And the same 1 in 6 next time. And the time after that.
So, if you role it 60 times consecutively, would you expect to have a distribution of 6 throws of each number to be as likely as having 60 throws of just 6?
Bear in mind, each throw in isolation is just as likely to throw a 6 as to throw any other number.0 -
So, if you role it 60 times consecutively, would you expect to have a distribution of 6 throws of each number to be as likely as having 60 throws of just 6?
Bear in mind, each throw in isolation is just as likely to throw a 6 as to throw any other number.0 -
So do we agree, the more times the dice ends up on no accident today, eventually it's going to roll somewhere else.
(and yes, I meant 10, just got carried away with typing 6 there)0 -
So do we agree, the more times the dice ends up on no accident today, eventually it's going to roll somewhere else.
It's statistically independent (the dice).
If you throw a 6 1000 times, the chance of getting a 6 the next time is 1 in 6.
Yes you'd expect 1/6th of the throws to be a 6, but just because the last 1000 were 6 doesn't affect the next throw (not with dice anyway).
It's called independence in probability theory.
(My understanding is based on a Bachelor of Science degree and not anecdotes or lay person opinion/understanding).0 -
No.
It's statistically independent (the dice).
If you throw a 6 1000 times, the chance of getting a 6 the next time is 1 in 6.
Yes you'd expect 1/6th of the throws to be a 6, but just because the last 1000 were 6 doesn't affect the next throw (not with dice anyway).
It's called independence in probability theory.
(My understanding is based on a Bachelor of Science degree and not anecdotes or lay person opinion/understanding).
So back to you then
as before
I agree, if you role a dice, you have a 1 in 6 chance of getting any number.
And the same 1 in 6 next time. And the time after that.
So, if you role it 60 times consecutively, would you expect to have a distribution of 10 throws of each number to be as likely as having 60 throws of just 6?
Bear in mind, each throw in isolation is just as likely to throw a 6 as to throw any other number.
Is your Bsc in Maths?
0 -
would you expect to have a distribution of 10 throws of each number to be as likely as having 60 throws of just 6?
It's much more likely you'd get 10 sixes as there are a lot more combinations.
The next throw (we agree) is completely independent of whatever the previous combination.
So if someone parks on a busy street and there is a random chance of their car being in the wrong place at the wrong time then previous events have no effect whatsoever on future events as they are (like a dice) totally independent.
What I have always claimed is that the chance of being hit is not random across individuals because some people park on busy streets and others don't so we don't all carry the same risks because of our different lifestyles.
For exmaple I like to walk to the supermarket so my risk of having my car hit there is zero.
Is your Bsc in Maths?
I enjoyed both stats and computing so didn't want to specialise.
Actually I really enjoyed stats and considered a degree in Operational Research but reality took over and I ended up in IT because there are WAY more jobs in IT than in stats.
I also considered becoming an actuary but I really couldn't face any more study/exams and I believe it's loads of training/exams, but if I could have put reality aside and done exactly what I'd wanted I probably would have chosen Operational Research.0 -
Oh lisyloo, where were you last night when I needed you?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards