There are a couple reasons off of the top of my head I can think of why the probability is significantly smaller than your intuition:
- Playing fast and loose with rounding.
While it seems innocent, and even with a small number of trials the "rounding error" compound very quickly. This is because the multinomial formula,
$$P(X_1 = k_1, X_2 = k_2,\cdots, X_m = k_m) \frac{N!}{k_1!k_2!\cdots k_m!} p_1^{k_1}p_2^{k_2}\cdots p_m^{k_m}$$
involves both factorials and exponentials.
- Even the most probable multinomial distribution outcome pale in comparison to the number of total combinations.
Even modest probabilities and a low number of trials have a large number of potential outcomes and it becomes increasing difficult to draw computationally or see experimental frequencies of exact outcomes.
Following this problem, and this result might be unexpected, the most probable outcome is $A=5,B=0, C= 0, D= 5$. And can easily be shown by having R run through all the possible combinations:
brute <- c()
d <- 1
ind <- c(0,0,0,0)
maxP <- 0
for (i in 0:10) {
for (j in 0:10) {
for (k in 0:10) {
for (n in 0:10) {
if (sum(c(i, j, k, n)) == 10) {
brute[d] <-
dmultinom(x = c(i, j, k, n),
prob = c(0.46, 0.075, 0.035, 0.43))
if (brute[d] > maxP) {
ind[1] <- i
ind[2] <- j
ind[3] <- k
ind[4] <- n
maxP <- brute[d]
}
d <- d + 1
}
}
}
}
}
print(ind)
print(maxP)
And results in:
[1] 5 0 0 5
[2] 0.07630131
Even the most probable outcome happens infrequently.