PoliCHARTZ - Thread of U.S. Politics & the Presidential Election

[Final-Fan]

I'm still actually suspicious of the accuracy of that model.  Isn't it more like the DD rolls to see how many people he encounters and whom (this would be the part affected by POPDEN), then rolls to see in what order he encounters them, and then rolls to see if he hits in order of appearance? 

So with 2 potential targets, and since we're assuming they all encounter each of us separately (negating the first set of rolls) but stop if they hit the first person, the chances for each DD to hit me would be decreased by (.5*.05) (or 1 in 40, not 1 in 400), right?  (Due to a 50/50 chance of him encountering the II first and, if so, a 1/20 chance he hits the II and stops, before encountering me.)

2 DD and me:  .0975 (according to the calculator I used) (instead of .01)
3 DD and me and II:  .1426 * (1-.025)^3 ~= .1426 * .927 ~= .1322 (instead of .1425)

This math seems better to me, although I'm not positive I correctly factored in the decreased probability.  Since I'm happier with this calculation, and it still supports your point, I'll tentatively concede that the VM crime rate would go down.  If you still think your math is right and still want to defend it even though it's a moot point, I'll be happy to continue with that discussion.  If not, no problem.

[edit:  Also, since the non-II DD rate in our models is 66.6%, and the II DD rate is 50%, does that really count as 50% lower?  I wouldn't think so... [edit2:  I'd think it was 25%.  4/6 vs. 3/6; IIDDR = 3/4 of NIIDDR, so IIDDR is 25% lower than NIIDDR, or NIIDDR is 33.3% higher than IIDDR.  None of there are close to indicating a difference of 50% except obviously the raw number of DDs due to smaller II population.]]