The argument a) depends on you being a random observer and b) makes only a statistical prediction. If you are one of those early or late observers you will come to the wrong conclusions. Probability doesn't help you at that point at all.
Also: Once you start creating more and more variants of the the same pattern (double DA, other time frames) you don't really make the probability worse, you are doing p-hacking. That doesn't change reality and you can't reliably learn anything about reality.
I might be in a simulation and such checks might change my prior for it but it is quite low anyway. Like so many other strange and newfangled ways reality could be like theistic.
Yes it's a statistical prediction. The 90% confidence interval will be correct for 90% of people who use this method. 10% will be wrong. Apriori you are 9 times more likely to be in the first group than in the second.
Once you start creating more and more variants of the the same pattern (double DA, other time frames) you don't really make the probability worse, you are doing p-hacking.
I don't see this as an alternative variant to fudge the numbers. To me this seems to be the correct way to do the calculation. This makes the above argument correct, that...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "