Thread: Probability Paradox!?!

I have a question regarding probabilities that has always confused me


it seems to me to be a believer but please don't hesitate to correct me


so lets have a coinflip. . It has been said that going contrary the previous result doesnt mean shit... so it lands heads and going tails will not net me a greater probability?

But when you factor in the probabilities of streaks it doesn't make sense

by way of example when I flip a coin 10 times. . The likelihood of it landing heads 2 days in a row is 85.93%... so gambling on tails will offer far better probabilities when watching it as a streak... but should I view it as one outcome then convinced its still a 50/50. . As there's two sides of this coin...

to me its an interesting paradox. . Let it land heads 3 times from this 10 flips and I'll bet . . Theres only a 25ish% probability of it landing heads . .


Hmmm...

I believe the error comes from the simple fact that

50% would be that the continuous event regardless of what the past or what the future information, if the event is really random then coin reverse having 2 sides and just able to land on 1 side will always yield 50% (assuming that the coin is tossed with the exact same force, the sides weight equally wind etc.. .all remains constant, and arbitrary )

we can calculate the likelihood of% of heads and tails on a 9 toss series however after we toss the coin 50% is our probability independently of our earlier calculations. Any streaks isn't an indiion of future occasions and are luck that is pure.

In the end of the day that the math should cancel off leaving the probability of minds to be 50% as in tails in order 9 tosses we anticipate 4 tails 4 heads and 1 totally arbitrary toss, nevertheless we might consume 9 heads in a row and that would be just luck as the real coin toss is 50/50

2 sides divided by one possible outcome

Allow me to put it in a more straightforward way....for those who think that streaks are potential and an edge can be attain from RANDOM data then answer this question

on a coin....there are two sides

can only fall on one side right?

So what's the force, which could impact this outcome in a manner that streaks are potential and somehow making it more likely that one side is much more probable than the flip side, when 2/1 is 50%

in other words can the last impact this equation? 2/1, what drive makes 2.8/1 or 1.5/1 potential when two sides 1 outcome?

Originally Posted by ;

If maths isn't the purest of ordinary sense, I do not know what's. Go to a professor and ask what is the likelihood of tails. It is regardless of what happened, ALWAYS 50 percent.

Following a million sequential tails, I might be tempted to assume that the coin is not completely fair. Maybe that is exactly what jam*3 meant by We should not get too bogged down to lose sight of common sense. Just pondering.

Originally Posted by ;

What about this for an idea of'advantage':

You get a simple coin flip betting experiment. There is a chance of getting a 50% chance of having tails and heads. You win 10 if you guess correctly. If you guess wrong you lose $11 (consider the additional $1 as transaction costs). What will happen over time? You may lose your cash.

Now, what if we factor in the concept of string' of flips as has been mentoned in the ribbon instead of taking each other as a single event. Imagine if we say the likelihood of getting heads on the next...

Market behaviour and probabilities aren't likely to change merely because one retail trader has had a recent series of losses.

Hence you would want to identify and establish a causal connection between your winning and losing transactions, i.e. demone that a triumph gets gt; 50% likelihood of occurring, after X consecutive losses, beyond the realms of'normal' statistical fluctuation. You run the risk of being'duped by randomness'.

Rather, if I had been the trader, I'd be looking to examine (and perhaps overhaul) my egy in an effort to decrease the number of losses that happened.

Originally Posted by ;

If it works as you suggest, then why don't you go to the casino and only bet on red following ten elephants in a row. I guarantee you, at the long-term you'd still lose. Past events, in this case, are not connected to future occasions.

You're still missing his point. There is a time when viability and theory run into each other-- if you've got a real coin which flipped and landed on tails one million times in a row, there is a pretty damn good chance that the coin's likelihood of landing on either side isn't actually 50/50, and that has to do with the real coin itself.

And to add a real life example, recorded gamblers have had extensive success going to casinos and celebrating specific roulette tables over time to observe that specific quantities DID come up more often than straightforward probablity theory would suggest, and they'd then hit those tables and bet the same amounts repeatedly. I feel it had to do with the reality that over time roulette tables wear down and paths are made that lead hitting a higher occurance than that which the maths would suggest.

Given that the market is not a mathematically ideal machine, it'd probably be sensible to approach it in much the exact same way as the coin which flipped tails a million times in a row...

Originally Posted by ;

You're still missing his purpose. There is a time when theory and practicality encounter each other-- if you've got a real coin that flipped and landed on tails one million times in a row, there is a pretty damn good chance that the coin's probability of landing on each side isn't actually 50/50, and that has to do with the actual coin itself.

And to bring a real life example, recorded gamblers have experienced extensive success going to casinos and celebrating specific roulette tables over the years to see specific numbers DID produce more...

again you failed to answer the question

a coin with two sides with just one possible outcome will permanently be 50/50
2/1= 1/2=0.5=50%

now what FORCE except your own creativity or belief tilts this equation any different?

Originally Posted by ;

Given that the market is not a mathematically perfect machine, it would probably be sensible to approach it in much the exact same way as the coin which flipped tails a million days in a row...

then please do so. Nobody is stopping you.

Originally Posted by ;

again you failed to answer this query

a coin with two sides with just one potential outcome will permanently be 50/50
2/1= 1/2=0.5=50%

now what FORCE except your imagination or perception tilts this equation any different?

You're right if you know beforehand that this coin has a 50% probability of landing on either, but to be honest I skipped your articles on the matter and didn't see that you given knowing a 50 percent chance on the flip. Also you can not bias a coin on a flip, however you alter the burden. The way I interpreted the example is we see a coin flip (a theoretical one of course) and it lands on tails one million times in a row, regardless of our belief that a coin reverse should have a 50% chance of either. After seeing this (even though it being physically impossible, but bare with me), you'd want to rethink your belief that this coin is non-biased, thus his point At some point you need to fix your model to reflect reality. Playing unknowingly loaded die, and it's the same thing.

The roulette example still stands and serves to show the point even better because it's a real-life example. Given the theoretical chances of blackjack you have x likelihood of y happening, however after really celebrating a roulette table (or tables), you'd be quite incorrect to continue gambling the chances in the face of evidence demonstrating these chances likely are not still reflected in reality.

Originally Posted by ;

then please do this. Nobody is stopping you.

In the event that you actually did play with an odds game where you believed the chances to be X, but following 1000000 consecutive cases it ends up your chances are not really X or perhaps close to Xbut you kept gambling on the X chances, I believe that is the textbook definition of insanity-- doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Of course, nobody is stopping you from trying that, either

Originally Posted by ;

Should you really did play an odds game in which you believed the odds to become X, but following 1000000 consecutive cases it ends up your odds are not really X or even close to Xbut you kept gambling on the X odds, I believe that's the textbook definition of insanity-- doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Of course, nobody is stopping you from attempting that, either

Yeah smittens, I was really talking about a game with 50% chance. Then let's just flip a coin with a program, if you have issues with a physical coin.
Now, what you don't appear to get isthat totally random events can have extensive stripes, but the irony is that just because the pc hit head a million times or more, it does not mean that the next time tails will seem. The possibility is always 50%. And now don't come up that the computer is programmed wrong or blabla.
I am speaking about totally random events. They can have streaks of course, but you can not imply the outcome. The possibility IS ALWAYS 50% no matter what happened. And yes a million tails or heads in a row, as improbable as it can be, can happen as a streak. It's mathematically not hopeless. However, the coin toss will probably still only have a 50% probability of tails.
That's why a lot of systems that are actually producing random results, get popular for a few months to several years. Most individuals don't understand they have and then the system goes back to random. In reality effects that are random were always produced by the system, it just had a streak within the outcomes that are random.