blakebowling wrote:You're suggesting probabilities based on "It would be better if it were like this". That's not the point in mafia. You're supposed to figure out "Which of these is the most realistic"?
No, I'm not. Refer back to the 4 scenarios. The correct mathematical analysis should be:
"what happens if I trust Blake?" - (likelihood of A x chance of winning if A) + (likelihood of B x chance of winning if B)
"what happens if I trust Rodion?" - (likelihood of C x chance of winning if C) + (likelihood of D x chance of winning if D)
You then match "trust-Blake % of winning the game" against "trust-Rodion % of winning the game" and see which is bigger (they don't necessarily add up to 100%).
You must understand that I'm not using the formula to suggest "likelihood of A+B" is smaller than "likelihood of C+D". That suggestion is the result of all our arguments so far (there are 5 pages of back and forth discussion and you+freezie+Tails slipping like you're drunk in a rainy night).
I'm merely suggesting that, if you can't tell who's telling the truth here, it's mathematically sound to trust Rodion, as "chance of winning if D" is considerably better than "chance of winning if A", while B and C pretty much offset each other. Again, I've never said that that it's the only thing you have to ponder, but it's mathematically proven to be one hell of a tiebreaker.