Quote:
Originally Posted by hoopsguy
I'll run some math on the first part of Chief's pet theory: "Two people at random are likely to be villager/villager"
In a vacuum, if you assume 4 wolves + 1 sympathizer, then there are 16 "good" and 5 "bad" votes at this point.
16/21 * 15/20 = 240/420 = 57.1%
OK, this part does hold up although it is not much of a margin. If there are 6 "bad" votes then it doesn't hold up (exactly 50%).
The initial thing that tweaked me on this was the idea that we had to be villager/villager. I understand that the wolves like to shape the conversation, which shifts the probability from where it would be in a vacuum. But the wolf assignments are random. There isn't much they can do about "quiet player backlash" if NTN is a wolf, just to give one example. I've been a wolf a number of times on Day 1 where I've been stuck in cross-fires with another wolf and had to work like hell in mid/late day to generate movement away from me and my partners.
Also, the communication patterns of the wolves may make it difficult for them to shake out the votes just so (1 for each of two leaders) this early in the day.
I agree with Lathum that it is somewhat convenient to come up with a Day 1 theory that puts himself in the clear, clears two more players (the guys with votes) and creates discussion around 8 people.
If it in fact turns out that Chief was right then at the end of the game I will tip my cap to him (assuming he is not a wolf with inside info) but this feels a little too neat to me.
|
I have countered the "cleared" part above, which is a ridiculous assumption on both Lathum's part and your own, but I entirely agree about the potential flaws to running with this theory without more evidence, which is why I strongly advocate no one apply it right now (and maybe not ever). Your "communication" example is an excellent point to consider. This theory is based on the underlying assumption that the wolves are fully involved and available and working together with their votes, which is an entirely unsafe assumption to make. It's just another reason why at this point the theory is meaningless, but it will be interesting to see if it plays out anywhere near correct.
BTW, this theory is based on wolf decisions, and the wolves have no idea who the sympathizer is. So from their perspective, assuming four wolves, there are 17 villagers. Meaning the likelihood of a villager vs villager battle is 17/21*16/20 == 64.7%. That's a little more likely than your numbers, FWIW.