That's very generalized

my point still stands though

Its a general discussion no

The more data you have, the more possibility for variation, compared to less data.

that's a very basic concept

Huh?

I thought you said more deviation from an imagined pattern

Not more variation

More variation helps my argument surely

If I flip a coin one time, I will likely never have the variation that I will find if I flip it 10 times.

But if you toss it 100,000 times

You wont be better off if you do it 10 mil

"Actually it would give you less ability to construct viable statisticial models because it allots for more variation"

is what I said

No?

No?

You deny me saying that?

I literally copy and pasted

I deny it being correct

If you toss a coin 100,000 times you're going to have more accuracy in your conclusion than if you do it 10 times under the same conditions

More variation equals more best fit models

Not less

you could flip 7 heads and 3 tails by chance

No. You wont simply. That is in principle incorrect.

with 100,000 flips you won't get 70 percent heads

And gets to the heart of my discussion

with 10 it's still significantly possible

Yeah. You need enough.

More is not better

My whole argument

You believe it's impossible to get 7 heads in a coin toss of 10 times?

I think most people would disagree

even if its not likely

it's still quite possible

Again. I said enough. Is 10 flips enough in principle to establish a certain premise about coinflips? No.

But 100k is

And more wont help

100k is more than 10

100k helped compared to 10

hence proving my point

Come on man