I challenge you to a coin toss, I will award you 1 million USD

>>36521574
No, it decreases my chances

>>36521606
Now this is even more retarded than just saying it doesn't increase your chance.

>>36521619
If you see the coinflip pattern happen, you also know what to expect and if you go first, you have a higher chance to win.
It's not just about the coinflips, it's about basic psychology.

>>36521574
Independent events, son. I can flip it ten trillion times and they could all be heads. It doesn't matter.

>>36521673
> I can flip it ten trillion times and they could all be heads

Yes you theoretically could.

Your chance to get heads would decrease every single time you flip the coin and it lands on heads though.

>>36521574
>lands on tails
when you say that do you mean tails up
or tails down

>>36521737
How...? I want to hear your retarded reasoning.

>>36521739
I'm guessing your not a native English speaker.

When someone says a coin "landed on heads", or "landed on tails", they mean it landed, respectively, with the heads and tails side face-up.

>>36521673
Unlike in one coin flip if you flip it ten trillion times, the number of tails in the sequence gets closer and closer to 50%
If you have flipped it 9 trillion times, and have got 70% tails, the rest one trillion times in the sequence have a higher chance of being heads, as the number gets closer to 50%. You are not looking an individual coin flip here, you are looking at a sequence.

>>36521770
You would find it difficult to land on heads 10 times in a row, and it is only theoretically possible to land on heads 10,000 times in a row, let alone ten trillion.

Why is this? Because your chance to land on heads decreases each consecutive time you land on heads.

>>36521832
>predetermined events predict a return to equilibrium
Casinos love people like you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Monte_Carlo_Casino

>>36521770
Not him but it's basic statistics

The coin flip as two outcomes, with each outcome having an equal chance of occuring, no argument there. However the chance of the same outcomes happening consecutively becomes smaller the more it happens.
gonna jump on my computer to finish this post

>>36521928
Yeah they ended up losing, but that doesn't mean their chances of winning weren't higher than normal.

They were right to bet on red when it landed on black 26 times in a row, of course it could just land on black again, but the chances of it landing on red are far higher at that point.

>>36521832
it doesn't matter if you flip the coin infinitely, they are all independent events which have no bearing on any other event outcome regardless if the events are in sequence. Statistically yes the more you flip the coin the closer the probability of either outcome gets to 50/50. But in practice no amount of coins being flipped could alter the probability of getting a certain result on another coin flip.

>>36522008
>I don't understand the gambler's fallacy: the post
>I am a fucking idiot and I don't understand statistics: the post

>>36522098
The gambler's fallacy is only a fallacy in terms of theoretical math, it is a technicality, in real life probability/chances are truly changed by things that would fall under the "gambler's fallacy".

>>36521862
>Because your chance to land on heads decreases each consecutive time you land on heads.

Your chance to land on heads each -consecutive- time decreases, not the chance to land on heads itself.

>>36522151
You've got it the wrong way around pal. In theory the probability should be changed, in real life it is not.

>>36522177
Half of this post is just repeating what I said. My statement is still true and you're not pointing out anything wrong with it.

>>36521574
An event in a series being statistically unlikely based on the entire series is not statistically unlikely as an independent event.

Flipping heads 11 times in a row is unlikely. There is a 0.5 x (0.5^10) chance of this occuring. But the 11th flip is still 0.5. It's right there.

>>36521804
i'm native
but if someone is putting a mil on a coinflip, there is probably some bullshit hiding behind the proposition

>>36522300
OP either didn't take a statistics course or is being successful bait

>>36522223
I fully understand you. In terms of hard math it has to be viewed this way, but in real life it doesn't work that way.

Let me give you another scenario, you have 5 attempts to make a 6-sided dice lands on 3, and I will give you 1 million USD.

You may roll a dice as many times as you like beforehand.

Does rolling the dice 20 times in a row and NOT landing on 3 beforehand, increase your chance of landing on 3 within the first 5 attempts against me?

File: basic stats.png (24KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 1000x800px

>>36521999
pic related

also I love how many stats experts are in this thread now

File: 2017-04-24-230639_900x700_scrot.png (61KB, 900x700px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 900x700px

How fucking hard can this be, didn't you guys ever go to high school

>>36522570
I guess I was more autistic because I spent 15 minutes on this bullshit
>>36522776

>>36521673
lmao good luck with that idiot