However it is true that doing something with a 10% success rate 10 times will net you an average of 1 success.
For the easier to work out case of doing something with a 50% success rate 2 times:
Gives an average of 1 success.
Of course this only matters for the sort of thing where 2 successes is better than 1 success:
Nice. I have a suggestion how to improve the article. Put a clearly stated theorem somewhere in the middle, in its own block, like in academic math articles.
Many of you readers may instinctively know that this is wrong. If you flip a coin (50% chance) twice, you are not guaranteed to get heads. The odds of getting a heads are 75%. However you may be surprised to learn that there is some truth to this statement; modifying the statement just slightly will yield not just a true statement, but a useful and interesting one.
It's a spoiler, though. If you want to figure this out as you read this article yourself, you should skip this and then come back. Ok, ready? Here it is:
It's a 1/n chance and I did it n times, so the odds should be... 63%. Almost always.
The math:
Suppose you're flipping a coin and you want to find the odds of NOT flipping a single heads in a dozen flips. The math for this is fairly simple: The odds of not flipping a single heads is the same as the odds of flipping 12 tails. which is
(1/2)12≈0.000977The same can be done with this problem: you have something with a 1/10 chance and you want to do it 10 times. The odds of not getting it to happen even once is the same as the odds of it not happening, 10 times in a row. So
(9/10)10≈0.35If you learned some fairly basic probability, I doubt this is that interesting to you. The interesting part comes when you look at the general formula: The probability of not getting what you want (I'll call this 1−p, because p would be the probability of the outcome you want) is
1−p=(1−1n)nWhere n in our case is 10, but in general is whatever number you hear when you hear the (incorrect) phrase "It's a one-in-n chance, and I did it n times, so it should be 100%"
Hold on a sec, that formula looks familiar...
"(1−1n)n ..." I thought to myself... "That looks familiar..." This is by no means obvious, but to people who have dealt with the number e recently, this looks quite similar to the limit that actually defines that number. This sort of pattern recognition led me to google what this limit is, and it turns out my intuition was close:
limn→∞(1−1n)n=1e1e≈0.37So it turns out: for any n that's large enough, if you do something with a 1/n chance of success n times, your odds of failure are always going to be roughly 37%, which means your odds of success will always be roughly 63%.
So, if something is a 1/n chance, and I do it n times, the odds should be... 63%.
Isn't that cool? I think that's cool.
What I'm NOT saying:
There are a couple ways to easily misinterpret this, so here are some caveats:
Spoiler for 5, 10, and 20: it's 67%, 65%, and 64% respectively