Wrong again. You are defining the actual bias here though. The planets we’ve found weren’t selected with all possible planets being equally likely to be selected.
No, I don’t think so. Yes, it’s true that not all stars are equally likely to be selected. And that is a problem of sample bias, NOT sample size. From my reading, this is exactly what Sofis is saying.
I have heard it claimed that a sample size in the neighborhood of a thousand, assuming it is a genuinely random sample, will be valid for any size population. I don’t know enough about stats, though, to say whether that really does hold true with a population that approaches infinity.
That’s what I said. I was saying that Lurker’s idea of bias hasn’t been established. Our detection process may turn out to be the best one there is. We don’t know though, because guess why?
Then why are you quoting Sofis and saying “Wrong again”?
Sorry, I am being confusing. Sofis is right about sample size not mattering, if there is no bias. But the post I was responding to made the assumption of unbiased selection. I was saying that Sofis defined the bias, not the reason the sample size was sufficient. So Sofis is right that if unbiased the sample size isn’t affected by the total number of possible planets.
I apologize Sofis for poorly wording in that way. I should have just pointed out the distinctions.
This thread is missing some perspective . There is 300 billion stars in our galaxy . If one in one million star systems has a solar system like ours then there is 300,000 in our galaxy. Maybe we are a freak but we still have company .
It’s that word “if”, though. Until we have far superior means of detecting exoplanets like ours we haven’t a clue if one in one million is a reasonable estimate. (Among other things, it’ll be hard to probe a million star systems.) And even if it is, that strains the definition of “company” a little. 
To be fair, the only reason we cannot detect it is because it is made from dark matter.