Quote:
|
No, simple percentage historical data only tell you what the chances where in the past. It is your interpretation of the historical data, your assumption, that they project into the future.
|
No, and this is where people continually get it wrong, IMO. The historical data (descriptive stats) does not tell you what the chances were in the past, is tells you what actually did happen in the past. Statistics then allow you to take that known data and make assumptions (inferential stats) based on certain proven mathematical formulas. Those allow you to determine, with a varying degree of accuracy, what the chances of something in the future will be.
Quote:
|
Part of the way in which the percentage average is kept low is due to gun capacities. Low capacity guns introduce a bias into the data that keep the percentages lower.
|
That is not a bias, that is a factual piece of data to be included. It's like saying the average age of people dying is kept low because people don't live long. Gun capacity is fairly low, but that doesn't change the fact that most gunfights are solved with a very low number of rounds.
Quote:
|
You have also assumed that the problem will "solved" with that number of rounds.
|
No, you have assumed there is an acceptable chance of success with that number of rounds. You accept the fact that you might be wrong, but decide the chance of being wrong is so low it does not justify any further investment in reducing that chance. Again, the tiger in the living room problem.
Quote:
|
In reality, that number of rounds average includes those where the shooter, good or bad, lost of the fight.
|
That can be a reality. Depending on how you choose to use the data and what data you collect you can have averages from win and lose, those who win only, those who lose only. As a matter of reality, most studies that I have seen show all three of those numbers being very close together.