4 ms·
No, his arguments is exactly opposite to the gambler's fallacy. If the gambler's fallacy were not a fallacy, then there would be no issue. But because we know i
by prmph 10y ago
No, his arguments is exactly opposite to the gambler's fallacy. If the gambler's fallacy were not a fallacy, then there would be no issue. But because we know it is a fallacy, then the fact that we have 1000 heads so far tells us (in theory) nothing about the fairness of the coin. But in that case, what does a probability of 50% actually mean?
- criddell 10y ago> the fact that we have 1000 heads so far tells us (in theory) nothing about the fairness of the coin Really? If I flip a coin 1000 times and always get heads, how much would you be willing to bet me that the next flip gets tails?
- prmph 10y agoSo after how many consecutive heads will you decide that the coin is biased? 10? 100? 1000? And what is that number based on? In any case, if you choose any number X, then what you are really saying is that a fair coin cannot produce X heads in a row. In that case, consider this thought experiment: lets assume we know a coin is fair, then by your logic, as soon as we have X-1 heads in a row, we already know the outcome of the Xth toss: it should be a tail. But this is a contradiction, because if the coin is really fair, then the probability of a tail on any toss should always be 50%, irrespective of what has happened before