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, substack

Recent posts on blogs I like:

Male Sexuality

Testosterone-driven sexuality is different from estrogen-driven sexuality.

via Thing of Things August 8, 2025

The anti-fragile culture

I wrote a post about organizational culture!.

via Home August 6, 2025

Retrospective on life tracking and effectiveness systems

I’ve been doing life tracking for around 10 years, and this post is looking back at some things I learned from the data (since my previous retrospective in 2017). Highlights include what I get out of the Oura ring, correlations between sleep and deep work…

via Victoria Krakovna July 4, 2025

more     (via openring)