5 ms·

I mean if a guy wins a coin toss 1000x in a row is that definitive evidence? That's basically what you have here. With the added extra of being able to see him

I mean if a guy wins a coin toss 1000x in a row is that definitive evidence? That's basically what you have here. With the added extra of being able to see him check his phone before making ridiculous bets.

GlenTheMachine 7y ago
If there's a lot of money on the line? Yes. I'd be much more inclined to believe the coin was rigged than that I "just happened" to see an event that should only happen once or twice in the history of the universe.
- Drdrdrq 7y ago
  It doesn't necessarily mean he is cheating. He could have simply invented a time machine. ;)
  - 9935c101ab17a66 7y ago
    That would still be cheating though?
- freyr 7y ago
  People are bad at probability. This shouldn't happen even once or twice. If each human who ever lived flipped 1000 coins a trillion times, it shouldn't happen. If there were a trillion planets, each with a trillion people, each flipping 1000 coins a trillion times, it shouldn't happen. Not even close.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > People are bad at probability. This shouldn't happen even once or twice. If each human who ever lived flipped 1000 coins a trillion times, it shouldn't happen. Yet, if you get 20 people in a room, there’s a near 50/50 chance that 2 folks have the same birthday. Equally mind blowing. So yes, people are pretty bad at probability.
    - glofish 7y ago
      I think that your example shows an unexpected outcome, but not as shockingly so as the examples that it replies to. The naive (and incorrect) deduction that one might make is that you start with 1/365 chance, so by adding twenty people you make it 20/365 that is 5%. So instead of the estimate of 5% the correct results that account for all possible comparison ends up being 50% - an order of magnitude higher. The difference is substantial but it is not on the same orders of magnitude that this problem or the other examples are.
Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
> I mean if a guy wins a coin toss 1000x in a row is that definitive evidence? Nope. Just extremely lucky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHU-L3BLd_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHU-L3BLd_w (Or just spending over an hour and half trying to get 10 alternating sides in a row for a YT Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=917VgVGVkpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=917VgVGVkpc) But even though its extremely unlikely to happen doesn't mean its definitive evidence.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  1000x in a row is 1.046e+298 times harder (that's nearly Googol ^ 3) than 10x in a row. That is: if you expect to see 10x in a row happen in 1.5 hours, you can expect to see 1000x in a row happen in 1,569,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000... (295 total zeros) hours. Heat-death of universe will happen in roughly 10^100 years from now (one googol). So over the lifetime of roughly googol-squared universes, if you do nothing but flip coins... you'll see 1000x in row. ------------ Encryption is only ~128-bits to maybe 256-bits worth of protection. If you can "guess" heads / tails on a fair coin 128 times in a row, you can "guess" people's encryption keys.
  - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
    I didn't say it would be easy (Nor expecting anyone to brute force it), just that it wouldn't be imo definitive evidence that someone was cheating instead of having exceptional luck. Is guessing 1000x coin flips possible? (forget how unlikely it would be, just that would it be possible?) If the answer is yes then I can't say that if I saw it happen then I could say "that person obv cheated".
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - function_seven 7y ago
shkkmo 7y ago
I'm not saying there is no evidence, but the evidence is circumstantial and not definitive. > I mean if a guy wins a coin toss 1000x in a row is that definitive evidence? That he's cheating, not really. It is evidence that something strange is going on that should be looked at. If there is money being bet on the coin tosses, there is good reason to believe that the strangeness may be related to cheating. The context here does make it very likely that there is cheating going on, but it still doesn't provide "authoritative and complete" evidence that cheating took place. I want evidence as to how the cheating took place. The "How" is really far more interesting and important here than just the fact that some cheating took place. If you catch a cheater but don't unmask the methodology you run the risk of other cheaters using the same system in a lower-profile manner.

GlenTheMachine 7y ago

If there's a lot of money on the line? Yes. I'd be much more inclined to believe the coin was rigged than that I "just happened" to see an event that should only happen once or twice in the history of the universe.

Drdrdrq 7y ago
It doesn't necessarily mean he is cheating. He could have simply invented a time machine. ;)
- 9935c101ab17a66 7y ago
  That would still be cheating though?
freyr 7y ago
People are bad at probability. This shouldn't happen even once or twice. If each human who ever lived flipped 1000 coins a trillion times, it shouldn't happen. If there were a trillion planets, each with a trillion people, each flipping 1000 coins a trillion times, it shouldn't happen. Not even close.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > People are bad at probability. This shouldn't happen even once or twice. If each human who ever lived flipped 1000 coins a trillion times, it shouldn't happen. Yet, if you get 20 people in a room, there’s a near 50/50 chance that 2 folks have the same birthday. Equally mind blowing. So yes, people are pretty bad at probability.
  - glofish 7y ago
    I think that your example shows an unexpected outcome, but not as shockingly so as the examples that it replies to. The naive (and incorrect) deduction that one might make is that you start with 1/365 chance, so by adding twenty people you make it 20/365 that is 5%. So instead of the estimate of 5% the correct results that account for all possible comparison ends up being 50% - an order of magnitude higher. The difference is substantial but it is not on the same orders of magnitude that this problem or the other examples are.

Crosseye_Jack 7y ago

> I mean if a guy wins a coin toss 1000x in a row is that definitive evidence? Nope. Just extremely lucky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHU-L3BLd_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHU-L3BLd_w (Or just spending over an hour and half trying to get 10 alternating sides in a row for a YT Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=917VgVGVkpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=917VgVGVkpc) But even though its extremely unlikely to happen doesn't mean its definitive evidence.

dragontamer 7y ago
1000x in a row is 1.046e+298 times harder (that's nearly Googol ^ 3) than 10x in a row. That is: if you expect to see 10x in a row happen in 1.5 hours, you can expect to see 1000x in a row happen in 1,569,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000... (295 total zeros) hours. Heat-death of universe will happen in roughly 10^100 years from now (one googol). So over the lifetime of roughly googol-squared universes, if you do nothing but flip coins... you'll see 1000x in row. ------------ Encryption is only ~128-bits to maybe 256-bits worth of protection. If you can "guess" heads / tails on a fair coin 128 times in a row, you can "guess" people's encryption keys.
- Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
  I didn't say it would be easy (Nor expecting anyone to brute force it), just that it wouldn't be imo definitive evidence that someone was cheating instead of having exceptional luck. Is guessing 1000x coin flips possible? (forget how unlikely it would be, just that would it be possible?) If the answer is yes then I can't say that if I saw it happen then I could say "that person obv cheated".
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - function_seven 7y ago

shkkmo 7y ago

I'm not saying there is no evidence, but the evidence is circumstantial and not definitive. > I mean if a guy wins a coin toss 1000x in a row is that definitive evidence? That he's cheating, not really. It is evidence that something strange is going on that should be looked at. If there is money being bet on the coin tosses, there is good reason to believe that the strangeness may be related to cheating. The context here does make it very likely that there is cheating going on, but it still doesn't provide "authoritative and complete" evidence that cheating took place. I want evidence as to how the cheating took place. The "How" is really far more interesting and important here than just the fact that some cheating took place. If you catch a cheater but don't unmask the methodology you run the risk of other cheaters using the same system in a lower-profile manner.