[QUOTE="Shin ATproof, post: 219168, member:
Your "argument" is still hinging on the probability of it being lower than clashing when in actuality it's random and likely 50% if you want to throw a percentage of the chance of it occurring. You keep bringing up this mysterious "consensus" that says the chances of Danger Time is lower than a regular clash and that falls into the gambler's fallacy.
[/Quote]
How? Gambler's fallacy would be if I claimed that since there were 3 clashes without DT then the next one would have a better chance of having a DT... I'm saying now such thing.
Using your own number, let's assume it is 50%... that means each time it happens, it is 50%.
Every... fucking... time... 50%.
So whether there is one clash or 100 clashes per match, it is still 50% (your number) Yup, every... fucking... time. So by definition, the probability of DT occurring less than clashes is unequivocally true. Why? Because it hinges on a clash. In other words, per clash there will be ~.5 DT occurrence. But wait, per DT occurrence, there will be only 1 clash occurrence. Because DT is predicated on a clash. As in depends on it. As in you can't have DT without clash. As in... you get it, I think, right?
But I do see your fundamental misunderstanding of this. It is in this sentence here:
In Guilty Gear Xrd, since your only possible results are: A regular Clash and Danger Time, and it's random, the probability of getting Danger Time is as rare as clash, not rarer.
So let me lay it out super nice and easy using your 50% number mark:
There are two occurrences:
1: Clash
2: Clash > Danger Time
That means two clashes per Danger Time or 2:1 or 50/50 or 50% which means # of Clashes > # of Danger time (by ~50% over a large sample size).