All revision notes topics

Experimental probability and expected frequencyIB MYP Maths Extended: Revision notes

Section 1

Relative frequency

Experimental probability is based on results of trials. The relative frequency of an outcome is relative frequency=number of times the outcome happenstotal number of trials.\text{relative frequency}=\frac{\text{number of times the outcome happens}}{\text{total number of trials}}. Worked example: a spinner lands on red 46 times in 200 spins, so the relative frequency of red is 46200=0.23\frac{46}{200}=0.23. Use it as an estimate of the probability when you cannot work out the theoretical probability.

Key termsexperimental probabilityrelative frequencytrial
Common mistake

Dividing by the wrong total. Divide by the total number of trials, not by the number of other outcomes.

Section 2

Expected frequency

If you know (or estimate) a probability, you can predict how many times an outcome will happen: expected number=probability×number of trials.\text{expected number}=\text{probability}\times\text{number of trials}. Example: relative frequency of red =0.23=0.23, so in 500 spins you expect 0.23×500=1150.23\times500=115 reds. For a fair die rolled 600 times, you expect 16×600=100\frac{1}{6}\times600=100 sixes. An expected number is an estimate, not a promise. The actual result is usually close to it but not exactly equal.

Key termsexpected frequency
Exam tip

The expected number does not have to be a whole number during the calculation. Round at the end, for example 330.4≈330330.4\approx330.

Section 3

More trials give better estimates

The more trials you carry out, the closer the relative frequency is likely to be to the true probability. A result from 10 spins can be very different from the true probability, while a result from 1000 spins is usually much more reliable. Example: relative frequencies 0.420.42 (150 flips) and 0.4120.412 (1000 flips) both estimate the same probability, but the second is more reliable. You can combine results by adding both sets: 63+412150+1000=0.413\frac{63+412}{150+1000}=0.413.

Key termsreliablebiased
Common mistake

Thinking that a result after a few trials proves a die or spinner is unfair. Small numbers of trials can vary a lot by chance.

Section 4

Comparing theoretical and experimental results

Theoretical probability comes from equally likely outcomes, for example 14\frac{1}{4} for one section of four. Experimental probability comes from trials.

  • If they are close, there is no evidence that the object is biased.
  • If they stay far apart even after many trials, the object is probably biased. Example: a die gives a relative frequency near 0.20.2 for a 6 in 600 rolls and in 6000 rolls. The theoretical value is 16≈0.167\frac{1}{6}\approx0.167, so the die is probably biased. Always give the numbers and say whether the number of trials was large enough.
Key termstheoretical probability
Exam tip

Write a conclusion that compares the two probabilities, uses the number of trials, and states whether the object appears fair.

That's the notes covered.

Carry on to the next subtopic.

Exam questions on Experimental probability and expected frequency

  1. A spinner at a school in Kuala Lumpur has four equal sections, one of which is red. It is spun 200 times and lands on red 46 times.
    Work out the theoretical probability of red and comment on whether the spinner appears to be fair.2 marks
  2. A factory in Penang tests 400 light bulbs from one production line. Of these, 12 are faulty.
    Suggest how the factory could get a more reliable estimate of the probability that a bulb is faulty, and explain why this works.2 marks
  3. A student in Santiago flips a drawing pin 150 times and it lands point up 63 times. Another student flips the same pin 1000 times and it lands point up 412 times.
    Work out the relative frequency of 'point up' for each student and state, with a reason, which is more reliable.3 marks
See the full worksheet

Written by the Exaim team, led by Shaun Daswani (Head of Upper Secondary, Improve ME Institute; MSc Financial Mathematics, Imperial College London; BSc, UCL) and Jason Daswani (operational lead, Improve ME Institute; LSE).