Shortcuts With Chained Probabilities

February 17th, 2021
math
Let's say you're considering an activity with a risk of death of one in a million. If you do it twice, is your risk two in a million?

Technically, it's just under:

1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)^2 = ~2/1,000,001
This is quite close! Approximating 1 - (1-p)^2 as p*2 was only off by 0.00005%.

On the other hand, say you roll a die twice looking for a 1:

1 - (1 - 1/6)^2 = ~31%
The approximation would have given:
1/6 * 2 = ~33%
Which is off by 8%. And if we flip a coin looking for a tails:
1/2 * 2 = 100%
Which is clearly wrong since you could get heads twice in a row.

It seems like this shortcut is better for small probabilities; why?

If something has probability p, then the chance of it happening at least once in two independent tries is:

1 - (1-p)^2
 = 1 - (1 - 2p + p^2)
 = 1 - 1 + 2p - p^2
 = 2p - p^2
If p is very small, then p^2 is negligible, and 2p is only a very slight overestimate. As it gets larger, however, skipping it becomes more of a problem.

This is the calculation that people do when adding micromorts: you can't die from the same thing multiple times, but your chance of death stays low enough that the inaccuracy of naively combining these probabilities is much smaller than the margin of error on our estimates.

Referenced in: Peekskill Lyme Incidence

Comment via: facebook, lesswrong

Recent posts on blogs I like:

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

Look! A therapy technique people don't already know!

via Thing of Things May 14, 2025

Workshop House case study

Lauren Hoffman interviewed me about Workshop House and wrote this post about a community I’m working on building in DC.

via Home April 30, 2025

Impact, agency, and taste

understand + work backwards from the root goal • don’t rely too much on permission or encouragement • make success inevitable • find your angle • think real hard • reflect on your thinking

via benkuhn.net April 19, 2025

more     (via openring)