V
vvvaaannn
Guest
I have been wondering the following for a while and finally had some time to test it out:
1. Does bait actually work as designed by increasing the probability of catching the exact rare fish for which the bait was designed?
2. Assuming it does work, exactly how much does it help?
3. Does the process of "chumming" actually help? (Chumming is defined as using a lesser level bait, say great barracuda, to increase the probablity of catching a more rare fish, say black marlin)
Here is the study design.
1000 casts using great barracuda bait in deep water Falucca.
Results: 38 great barracuda (3.8%)
2 regular "big fish" (0.2%)
1 black marlin (0.1%)
1 kingfish (0.1%)
total "rare fish" 42 (4.2%)
1000 casts using no bait in deep water Falucca
Results; 11 great barracuda (1.1%)
2 regular "big fish" (0.2%)
1 Kingfish (0.1%)
total "rare" fish 13 (1.3%)
Therefore, it would seem using bait significantly increased the chances of catching the designated fish compared to no bait (3.8% compared to 1.1%). Even if we consider that the RBG is fubarred, it seem likely that it increases the chance by around 3-4X.
Next question: Does "chumming" work? It is really impossible to make a determination based upon this limited data. Since the chance of catching a really "rare" fish such as black marlin is from experience about 5-10k casts without bait, you would need a MUCH larger sample to see if the one black marlin catch using great barracuda bait was a direct result of an increase in chance occasioned by the use of the bait, or merely just an artifice of the RNG.
HOWEVER, I looked at this question from the opposite direction. Does using a HIGHER quality bait (say black marlin bait) increase the probability of catching great barracuda? If the answer was "yes" then in all probability the coding is merely "If you use a correct type bait in the correct location, then it increase the probability of catching every eligible "rare" fish, including ones not specific to the bait. (I.e. if you use a rarer bait, it should increase the probability of the less "rare" fish exactly the same as when you use the less "rare" bait) If it does not increase the probablity of the lesser rare fish, then in all probability it only increases the probablity of the fish specific to the bait.
Here is the results of using 300 blue marlin and 200 black marlin bait in Falucca and Trammel respectively (didnt have enough of either bait individually):
Total Great Barracuda or Yellowtail Barracuda; 6 (1.2%)
regular "big fish" 1 (0.2%)
Total 7 (1.4%)
This seems pretty clear that "reverse chumming" does not work in all probabilty, and therefore it seems logical that "chumming" should not work either. The probability of catching great barracuda/yellowtail barracuda is much closer to the result of using no bait (1.2% compared to 1.1%) than it is to using great barracuda bait (1.2% compared to 3.8%). I am sure that someone much better versed in statistics than I can compare these and see if that is statistically significant, but a first blush it sure seems to.
Now, if some suicidal person REALLY wants to test this hypothesis, you probably only need to record the results of perhaps 50,000 attempts using bait and compare them to non baited results.
1. Does bait actually work as designed by increasing the probability of catching the exact rare fish for which the bait was designed?
2. Assuming it does work, exactly how much does it help?
3. Does the process of "chumming" actually help? (Chumming is defined as using a lesser level bait, say great barracuda, to increase the probablity of catching a more rare fish, say black marlin)
Here is the study design.
1000 casts using great barracuda bait in deep water Falucca.
Results: 38 great barracuda (3.8%)
2 regular "big fish" (0.2%)
1 black marlin (0.1%)
1 kingfish (0.1%)
total "rare fish" 42 (4.2%)
1000 casts using no bait in deep water Falucca
Results; 11 great barracuda (1.1%)
2 regular "big fish" (0.2%)
1 Kingfish (0.1%)
total "rare" fish 13 (1.3%)
Therefore, it would seem using bait significantly increased the chances of catching the designated fish compared to no bait (3.8% compared to 1.1%). Even if we consider that the RBG is fubarred, it seem likely that it increases the chance by around 3-4X.
Next question: Does "chumming" work? It is really impossible to make a determination based upon this limited data. Since the chance of catching a really "rare" fish such as black marlin is from experience about 5-10k casts without bait, you would need a MUCH larger sample to see if the one black marlin catch using great barracuda bait was a direct result of an increase in chance occasioned by the use of the bait, or merely just an artifice of the RNG.
HOWEVER, I looked at this question from the opposite direction. Does using a HIGHER quality bait (say black marlin bait) increase the probability of catching great barracuda? If the answer was "yes" then in all probability the coding is merely "If you use a correct type bait in the correct location, then it increase the probability of catching every eligible "rare" fish, including ones not specific to the bait. (I.e. if you use a rarer bait, it should increase the probability of the less "rare" fish exactly the same as when you use the less "rare" bait) If it does not increase the probablity of the lesser rare fish, then in all probability it only increases the probablity of the fish specific to the bait.
Here is the results of using 300 blue marlin and 200 black marlin bait in Falucca and Trammel respectively (didnt have enough of either bait individually):
Total Great Barracuda or Yellowtail Barracuda; 6 (1.2%)
regular "big fish" 1 (0.2%)
Total 7 (1.4%)
This seems pretty clear that "reverse chumming" does not work in all probabilty, and therefore it seems logical that "chumming" should not work either. The probability of catching great barracuda/yellowtail barracuda is much closer to the result of using no bait (1.2% compared to 1.1%) than it is to using great barracuda bait (1.2% compared to 3.8%). I am sure that someone much better versed in statistics than I can compare these and see if that is statistically significant, but a first blush it sure seems to.
Now, if some suicidal person REALLY wants to test this hypothesis, you probably only need to record the results of perhaps 50,000 attempts using bait and compare them to non baited results.
