Hi snowinmay,Good instinct, and the short answer is:
your method is completely valid, not a coincidence. It's the same probability, just counted one person at a time instead of in a single combination.
Here's why it works. "Choose a team of 6 from 11" is the same as lining people up and asking about the first 6 slots - the probability that any specific person lands in the team is
6/11, and order doesn't change the count as long as you're consistent.
Both A and B in:- P(A is in) =
6/11- Given A took one of the 6 spots,
5 team spots remain out of
10 remaining people, so P(B also in) =
5/10- Multiply:
6/11 x
5/10 =
3/11Both A and B out:- P(A is out) =
5/11 (5 of the 11 are non-team spots)
- Given A is out,
4 non-team spots remain out of
10, so P(B also out) =
4/10- Multiply:
5/11 x
4/10 =
2/11The two cases can't both happen, so you add:
3/11 +
2/11 =
5/11.
The combinations method (
9C4 +
9C6)/
11C6 and your sequential method are just two languages for the same count - both correct. Use whichever is faster for you; here, yours is.
One caution to keep it safe: the conditional fractions must update correctly each step (after placing A, both the team spots
and the people left drop by one). You did that right. As long as you track those denominators honestly, sequential probability works for any "both in / both out" selection problem.
Answer: Csnowinmay
Why not just use probability instead of combinations?
P(both in) = 6/11 *5/10 = 3/11
P(both out) = 5/11 * 4/10 = 2/11
Add together = 5/11