Do The Math!

[EE THr]

Do The Math!

The LRL promoters were complaining about personal insults, in a couple other threads here, so there won't be any personal insults here. Just the mathematics of LRLs, and of LRLs compared to other equipment.

First let's establish the success rate percentage math, and what it means.

If you toss a coin, the random odds of guessing which side will land up, is 50-50. In percentages, this is expressed as an average success rate of 50%.

So, if any type of locating device is used to select between two unknown targets, with one of them being an agreed upon desireable target, and the other not, you would have the same random chance of 50-50 for just guessing---with or withour any locating device.

That means that a success rate of 50%, for a locating device, is really zero, because it's no better than random chance or just guessing.

So, the only percentages that are significant for testing dowsing or LRLs, are those between 50 and 100. Because anything less would mean that the locating device is doing nothing better than someone just guessing.

Since the whole LRL question revolves around the claim that LRLs are better than just dowsing, then it should stand to reason that, if dowsing and LRLs do work, the LRLs would have a significantly better average percentage of success than mere dowsing, right?

Now we have something to work with. Just the data, and no need for insults, right? Straight math. Good.

Furthermore, it has been claimed that a couple coat hangers (thank you SWR) will work as well as anything for standard dowsing rods. Now we can do the math, comparing the retail price of coat hangers to the retail price of an LRL device.

Since most metal coat hangers are free, let's assign them a hidden cost of 50 cents, since whoever gives them out with their laundry does have to pay for them, and that cost is passed on to the consumer. And since most people use two, that's a total cost of $1.00 to dowse.

Now we can compare the cost ratio of any particular LRL-to-coat hangers, with ratio of success percentage of the same LRL-to-coat hangers, right?

But remember, the success percentage of both dowsing, and LRLs, begins at 50% equals zero success above random guessing chance. So tests resulting in 50% success or less, must be calculated into the over all average success rate, but do not by themselves indicate any success at all.

Now we can express the value of, for example, a RangerTell LRL, by comparing it's cost ratio to it's success ratio.

No insults, no opinions, no bias. Just pure, simple math. Just the data, folks!

Fair enough?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Fair enough?

No

~Carl~

With LRLs and dowsing, "random chance" applies to randomized blind tests, not to field use. A randomized blind test does 2 things that a field test cannot do. First, it eliminates outside influences that might alter performance results, such as observable clues. Second, it provides a baseline from which to compare results, namely guessing.

Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*. But in a randomized blind test, it is quite easy to calculate the odds. Depending on the design of the test those odds can vary, so it is not a fixed number that applies to every test, but it's not a "moving target" either.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Fair enough?

No

~Carl~

With LRLs and dowsing, "random chance" applies to randomized blind tests, not to field use. A randomized blind test does 2 things that a field test cannot do. First, it eliminates outside influences that might alter performance results, such as observable clues. Second, it provides a baseline from which to compare results, namely guessing.

Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*. But in a randomized blind test, it is quite easy to calculate the odds. Depending on the design of the test those odds can vary, so it is not a fixed number that applies to every test, but it's not a "moving target" either.

What's your beef?

The methods for determining the percentage of success were defined in my post. What does Carl's post have to do with what I said?

 

[aarthrj3811]

The methods for determining the percentage of success were defined in my post. What does Carl's post have to do with what I said?

Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*.

 

[fenixdigger]

I'm not sure what's going on here, but let me recap my experiment on "random chance"

I took 10 golf balls and threw them in my yard. The farmhouse was built in 1897.

I then took the Minelab and scanned a 10 ft circle around them. Only 1 had no hits on all metal.

Next I threw them in a field where I had found a target at over 1,400 ft. Not 1 had a target within 25 ft. Several I went to 50 ft.

You see, I do experiment all the time. I don't just shoot my mouth off and squirm around using other peoples info. There are 8

other people that I work with doing the same thing. Do we ask each other for "proof" No, we go out in the yard or fields and

try it. Just my opinion, but anything less is not valid.

Of all the experiments I have seen posted, I have NEVER heard of a skeptic trying even 1. Brothers, that says it all.

SHO-NUFF


Let me add this; If you use 5 or 10 targets how can the odds be 50/50?? I took a different class on probability and stats.

 

[EE THr]

The methods for determining the percentage of success were defined in my post. What does Carl's post have to do with what I said?

Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*.

Where in my Original Post does it mention "field use"?

 

[EE THr]

fenix---

If you use 5 or 10 targets how can the odds be 50/50?? I took a different class on probability and stats.

Do The Math!

So, if any type of locating device is used to select between two unknown targets, with one of them being an agreed upon desireable target, and the other not, you would have the same random chance of 50-50 for just guessing---with or withour any locating device.

Fair enough?

It seems that you misunderstood my post.


Now does it seem fair?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

The methods for determining the percentage of success were defined in my post. What does Carl's post have to do with what I said?

Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*.
It clearly shows that you know nothing about the uses of the devices..
Could you calculate something for me ?..What are my odds of finding a Spanish Ship in a corn field in Kansas Vs finding one in Florida or California ? Get the picture…after all the only thing you have to do is flip a coin..Art

Where in my Original Post does it mention "field use"?

I see..You do not know what a LRL used by Treasure Hunters are used for..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

The methods for determining the percentage of success were defined in my post. What does Carl's post have to do with what I said?

Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*.
It clearly shows that you know nothing about the uses of the devices..
Could you calculate something for me ?..What are my odds of finding a Spanish Ship in a corn field in Kansas Vs finding one in Florida or California ? Get the picture…after all the only thing you have to do is flip a coin..Art

Where in my Original Post does it mention "field use"?

I see..You do not know what a LRL used by Treasure Hunters are used for..Art

Let me take a wild guess---Ummmmm...to find treasure?



So is the proposal for evaluation, by mathematics instead of emotions, fair?

 

[EE THr]

art---

Since you own, and have extensively used, a RangerTell LRL; would you please post your findings of the average success rate achieved when using two unknown targets?

Also the price of the RangerTell that you use?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Since you own, and have extensively used, a RangerTell LRL; would you please post your findings of the average success rate achieved when using two unknown targets?

How is a person going to figure his success rate for two unknown targets…When in the field every target is unknown. You may have only one target and up to 50 targets..Then you check each target for depth, distance and size of the target..You then decide which targets you are going to dig..Does the targets you decide that are not worth the effort go into calculating the average ?..Lets put it this way.. I have never dug a gold target that had no gold in the hole.
I paid under $450 for my unit and it has paid for it’s self..Art

 

[EE THr]

Since you own, and have extensively used, a RangerTell LRL; would you please post your findings of the average success rate achieved when using two unknown targets?

How is a person going to figure his success rate for two unknown targets…When in the field every target is unknown. You may have only one target and up to 50 targets..Then you check each target for depth, distance and size of the target..You then decide which targets you are going to dig..Does the targets you decide that are not worth the effort go into calculating the average ?..Lets put it this way.. I have never dug a gold target that had no gold in the hole.
I paid under $450 for my unit and it has paid for it’s self..Art

The Topic is, "Do The Math!"

The mathematics are precisely outlined in the Original Post.

The question of the Original Post, and my subsequent post directly to you, is, "Is the math evaluation method fair?

I also pointed out directly to you that this Topic is not about field use.

I understand that it is easy to become confused, because others have tried to divert away from the topic, but now that you have been reminded, please keep all of your posts on this thread to the Topic subject.

You can either answer the Original Post question, or comment on the contents of the Original Post or Topic. But this is not the place to discuss your adventures in the field, or anecdotes about yourself or others.

Thank you.

 

[EE THr]

So far, we have a cost of $449.00 for the RangerTell.

art---Is that retail, or did you buy it used?

 

[aarthrj3811]

So far, we have a cost of $449.00 for the RangerTell.

art---Is that retail, or did you buy it used?

Did you notice I said under $450.00..Why ..It'none of your business..Art

 

[EE THr]

So far, we have a cost of $449.00 for the RangerTell.

art---Is that retail, or did you buy it used?

Did you notice I said under $450.00..Why ..It'none of your business..Art

Then why is it you post everything else about your LRLs on here, if you don't want anyone to know about your affairs?

I think you're just being uncooperative.

But that's OK. If you don't want to participate in the Topic, then just don't post on here. That's simple enough. It's not that I'm telling you where to, or where not to, post, but if you want to discuss a different topic, then you should go there, right? Thanks.

 

[EE THr]

So, now that we have had adequate examples of diverting the subject with off-topic nonsense, I'll ask the original question again.

This time, just posts dealing with the Topic, huh?

If you want to comment on something else, either go to that topic, or start your own!

Here it is---


Do The Math!

The LRL promoters were complaining about personal insults, in a couple other threads here, so there won't be any personal insults here. Just the mathematics of LRLs, and of LRLs compared to other equipment.

First let's establish the success rate percentage math, and what it means.

If you toss a coin, the random odds of guessing which side will land up, is 50-50. In percentages, this is expressed as an average success rate of 50%.

So, if any type of locating device is used to select between two unknown targets, with one of them being an agreed upon desireable target, and the other not, you would have the same random chance of 50-50 for just guessing---with or withour any locating device.

That means that a success rate of 50%, for a locating device, is really zero, because it's no better than random chance or just guessing.

So, the only percentages that are significant for testing dowsing or LRLs, are those between 50 and 100. Because anything less would mean that the locating device is doing nothing better than someone just guessing.

Since the whole LRL question revolves around the claim that LRLs are better than just dowsing, then it should stand to reason that, if dowsing and LRLs do work, the LRLs would have a significantly better average percentage of success than mere dowsing, right?

Now we have something to work with. Just the data, and no need for insults, right? Straight math. Good.

Furthermore, it has been claimed that a couple coat hangers (thank you SWR) will work as well as anything for standard dowsing rods. Now we can do the math, comparing the retail price of coat hangers to the retail price of an LRL device.

Since most metal coat hangers are free, let's assign them a hidden cost of 50 cents, since whoever gives them out with their laundry does have to pay for them, and that cost is passed on to the consumer. And since most people use two, that's a total cost of $1.00 to dowse.

Now we can compare the cost ratio of any particular LRL-to-coat hangers, with ratio of success percentage of the same LRL-to-coat hangers, right?

But remember, the success percentage of both dowsing, and LRLs, begins at 50% equals zero success above random guessing chance. So tests resulting in 50% success or less, must be calculated into the over all average success rate, but do not by themselves indicate any success at all.

Now we can express the value of, for example, a RangerTell LRL, by comparing it's cost ratio to it's success ratio.

No insults, no opinions, no bias, and no off-topic BS. Just pure, simple math. Just the data, folks!

Fair enough?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Since just guessing which of two possible targets is the real one, will give the random percentage the same as coin flipping, which is 50%, then consider a dowsing test where 55% success is attained.

No guessing and no dowsing was done..So the 55% is just your guess

That's only 5% above the "nothing" point of random chance, or 50%. Although there has never been a random, double-blind test which has proven this to be possible, just take this as a mathematical example.

Random Chance can not be calculated in Field use..So now you admit that there has never been a double blind test don.
There is no reson to answer the rest as you have already proved that your theory is wrong..good work..Art

 

[EE THr]

Random Chance can not be calculated in Field use..So now you admit that there has never been a double blind test don.

There is no reson to answer the rest as you have already proved that your theory is wrong..good work..Art

Do the Math!

As an example of how to figure what value you get from an LRL, here is a hypothetical comparison.

You are wrong again, Art.

It's a hypothetical, not a theory.

It's not about field tests---because, as you said, there is no way to calculate percentage of success in the field, for an LRL device.

You must have misunderstood the purpose of the post.

It's a realistic mathematical evaluation of the value of LRLs.

If you can find a fault with my math, go ahead and point it out. It's possible that I made a mistake somewhere.

 

[aarthrj3811]

It's not about field tests---because, as you said, there is no way to calculate percentage of success in the field, for an LRL device.
So you claim that is a hypothetical and not a theory?..It is not about using the Treasure Hunting Devices in the Field…

So please tell why we need your “hypothetical” Math to enjoy our hobby?

 

[EE THr]

It's not about field tests---because, as you said, there is no way to calculate percentage of success in the field, for an LRL device.
So you claim that is a hypothetical and not a theory?..It is not about using the Treasure Hunting Devices in the Field…

So please tell why we need your “hypothetical” Math to enjoy our hobby?

Neither your considerations of what is a hobby, nor your enjoyment, is the topic of this thread or was mentioned in the post to which you are replying. Once again, you seem to have misunderstood the purpose of the post.

There is no way that typed letters on a page can stop you from enjoying whatever you want to do, anyway.

But if you want to talk about your hobby activities or your enjoyment, please do it in another, hopefully appropriate, thread. This thread is about the math of LRLs and their value.

Thank you.