Platform
Resources
Bayesian vs frequentist: A practical guide
If you've ever stared at an A/B test result wondering "But what does this actually mean?" - you're not alone. The stats world has been arguing about this exact question for decades, split between two camps: the Bayesians and the frequentists.
Here's the thing: most people running experiments don't need a philosophy degree to make good decisions. But understanding the basic difference between these approaches? That can save you from making some pretty expensive mistakes with your data.
The philosophical foundations of Bayesian and frequentist statistics
Think of it this way: frequentists are like strict judges who only care about what they can observe. They'll run the same experiment a thousand times (theoretically) and tell you how often something happens. Bayesians? They're more like detectives who start with a hunch and update their beliefs as evidence rolls in.
This isn't just academic hand-waving. These different worldviews lead to completely different ways of analyzing your A/B tests.
Frequentists treat the truth as fixed but unknown - like there's one "real" conversion rate out there, and we're trying to find it. They'll give you p-values and confidence intervals, which honestly, most people interpret wrong anyway. (Quick test: a 95% confidence interval means there's a 95% chance the true value is in that range, right? Wrong. But don't worry, everyone gets this confused.)
Bayesians flip the script. They say, "Look, I already have some idea about what might be true based on past experience. Let me update that belief with new data." They work with probability distributions that shift and evolve as more information comes in. It's like having a conversation with your data instead of interrogating it.
The Reddit threads on this topic get pretty heated, with each side convinced the other is missing something fundamental. And you know what? They're both right.
Key differences in parameter estimation and hypothesis testing
Here's where things get practical. When you're trying to figure out if your new checkout flow is better than the old one, these philosophical differences matter.
Frequentist A/B testing works like this:
You pick a sample size upfront (and stick to it, no peeking!)
You run the test until you hit that number
You calculate a p-value
You either reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis
Sounds straightforward, right? The problem is that p-values tell you the probability of seeing your data if there's no real difference - not the probability that your new version is actually better. It's backwards from what most people want to know.
Bayesian A/B testing takes a different route. As the folks at Medium point out, you start with prior beliefs (maybe based on previous tests or industry benchmarks), then update them as data comes in. You end up with statements like "There's an 85% chance the new version is better" - which is exactly what most people think they're getting from frequentist tests anyway.
But here's the catch: Bayesian testing isn't a magic bullet for the peeking problem. As David Robinson explains, you can still fool yourself by stopping when results look good. The math is different, but human nature stays the same.
The real advantage? Bayesian methods let you think about expected loss - basically, "How much money am I leaving on the table if I pick the wrong variant?" That's a question executives actually care about, unlike "What's the probability of observing this data under the null hypothesis?"
Applications in data analysis and A/B testing
So when should you actually use each approach? Let me break it down.
Go frequentist when:
You have tons of data and can afford to wait
You need to follow regulatory requirements (pharma, finance)
Your team already understands the framework
You want results that are "objective" (air quotes intentional)
Go Bayesian when:
You have strong prior knowledge ("Our holiday campaigns always do 20% better")
You need to make decisions quickly with limited data
You want to monitor results continuously
You care more about practical significance than statistical significance
Statsig's guide makes a good point: the best approach often depends on your specific situation. Running a high-stakes experiment on your pricing page? Maybe stick with the tried-and-true frequentist approach. Testing button colors on a low-traffic page? Bayesian methods might get you answers faster.
The real world example that convinced me? A startup I worked with was testing onboarding flows. With frequentist testing, they'd need to wait 6 weeks for "statistical significance." With Bayesian methods, they could see after 2 weeks that the new flow was very likely better (90%+ probability) and the expected loss from switching was minimal. They rolled it out, gained the improvements for an extra month, and moved on to the next test.
That's not to say Bayesian is always better. Some research shows that when you have plenty of data and time, both approaches usually lead to the same decision. The difference is in how you get there and what you can do along the way.
Implementing Bayesian methods in practice
Alright, let's say you're sold on trying Bayesian methods. How do you actually do this without a PhD in statistics?
First, the bad news: the math can get gnarly. Bayesian inference often requires techniques like Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) - basically, clever ways to approximate probability distributions when you can't calculate them directly. Tools like JAGS handle the heavy lifting, but you still need to know what you're doing.
The good news? Platforms like Statsig have done the hard work for you. They've pre-built the statistical machinery, so you can focus on interpreting results instead of debugging sampling algorithms.
Here's what actually matters when implementing Bayesian A/B tests:
Choosing your priors: This is where Bayesian methods shine or stumble. Use historical data when you have it. If you're testing something brand new, consider using weakly informative priors - basically saying "I think the effect could be anywhere in this reasonable range."
Running simulations: Before launching, simulate what would happen under different scenarios. What if there's no difference? What if the effect is huge? This helps you catch problems before they cost you money.
Setting decision thresholds: Instead of arbitrary significance levels, think about practical thresholds. Maybe you'll switch if there's an 80% chance the new version is at least 2% better. That's a business decision, not a statistical one.
Real-world example: An e-commerce team I know uses Bayesian regression to predict cart abandonment. They incorporate seasonality priors (people abandon carts more in January), device-type effects, and user history. The model updates daily, getting smarter over time. Try doing that with a t-test.
Closing thoughts
Look, the Bayesian vs frequentist debate isn't going away anytime soon. But for practitioners? You don't need to pick a side and defend it to the death.
The smart move is understanding both approaches and using the right tool for the job. Frequentist methods aren't going anywhere - they're battle-tested, widely understood, and perfect for many scenarios. But Bayesian methods open up new possibilities, especially when you need to move fast or incorporate prior knowledge.
My advice? Start small. Run your next A/B test with both approaches and compare the results. You'll probably find they agree most of the time - but pay attention to when they don't. Those edge cases are where the philosophical differences actually matter.
Want to dig deeper? Check out:
Statsig's beginner's guide for practical implementation
David Robinson's critique for a balanced view of Bayesian A/B testing limitations
The Reddit statistics community for ongoing debates and real-world examples
Hope you find this useful! And remember - the best statistical method is the one your team actually understands and uses correctly.