Just as you flip a coin, if you get five heads in a row, it does not mean the next time it is more likely to be tails...

>Just as you flip a coin, if you get five heads in a row, it does not mean the next time it is more likely to be tails. The odds are still 50/50.

Is this true?

Other urls found in this thread:

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1697475
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Do you know the coin is fair beforehand ? If you have no indication then you need to calculate the p-value of the null hypothesis "the coin is fair".

But if it's a fair coin yeah, the chance is still 50/50

Every coin flip is an independent event.

Thx

if you did not know anything about the coin beforehand and assume the throws to be independent events you could make a maximum likelyhood estimation of the probabilities, that would give you an estimated 100% chance for heads. but if you know that the coin is 50/50 and independent events then it's till gonna be 50%.

This

>Is this true?

every individual flip is 50/50.

the probability of 6 consecutive heads is the same as the probability of the sequence heads tails heads tails heads tails.

I think its called the gamblers fallacy or something similar.

A serious percentage of my engineering statistics class never could wrap their minds around the concept.

Wrong, even though there is only two sides to a coin, and thus people believe the true odds actually are 50/50, they aren't.

The chances of a coin landing on heads or tails is all dependent on who is flipping the coin. This is because nobody flips a coin in which the ratio is actually 50/50.

then it depends on which side you place face up on your thumb, which is also 50/50 unless willingly always put the same side face up

>Bla bla fagoty talk bla brainlet dribbles.

Look an edgy faggot who thinks its clever to reject the obvious premise of the question being a fair coin toss.

If blizzard flips your coin it can be basically any side they want it to be. Even impossible sides.

blablabla I live in a world of make believe scenarios, and I do not conform to this world that you call physics.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1697475

>blablabla I live in a world of make believe scenarios, and I do not conform to this world that you call physics.

the world I call physics (to use your terminology) that gave us everything we consider modern technology?

You sure you're not brain damaged?

only if your name is not Raziel.

If the technology is sufficiently advanced to be possible to use to confuse people enough to make them unable to learn it. Then it will be indistinguishable from magic for them.

First you call me a brainlet, and now you ask if I'm brain damaged. Your comment does not only make zero sense in comparison to what I've stated, but you've failed to understand my position.

What's your end-goal, user?

>What's your end-goal, user?

you could be ashamed of yourself enough to cry. That would be satisfactory.

You could even make a SJW social justice warrior meme post about how you were internet bullied about it. That would be extra credit.

the probability of the next one being a heads is 50/50 however the chance of all 6 being heads is 1.5625% or 1/64

The chances of getting 6 heads in a row is still 50%. Independent events. Retards can't wrap their heads around this.

the odds aren't 50/50, it could land on its edge

Say an alien civilization takes Earth hostage and makes 99 throws, all of which are heads, and with a fair coin.

You have to guess the outcome of the next throw. If you get it wrong, the Earth is destroyed, along with everyone and everything on it. So some of you would guess heads?

Ah, now I understand. You have a mental disability. It's okay user, I understand now that user was only speaking of a fair-coin toss, which can be replicated through technological means that avoids human interaction with the toss.

I just wanted to rustle someone's autistic jimmies.

I'd push the fucking button myself

It's interesting, because it defies intuition if you have the gamblers mindset of "six heads means a tails HAS to come up next!" But since the probability of the outcome of the next flip is not dependent on past flips, six heads in a row is a reasonable outcome. You have to look at it from the perspective of statistics and probability as a math discipline as opposed to the concept of "luck."

Understand the difference between
>5 coin flips have returned 5 heads in a row, what's the probability of the next flip being heads
and
>6 coins have been flipped, what's the probability of all them being heads

All of the statisticians in this thread must work for Nate Silver.

>Ah, now I understand. You have a mental disability. It's okay user, I understand now that user was only speaking of a fair-coin toss, which can be replicated through technological means that avoids human interaction with the toss.I just wanted to rustle someone's autistic jimmies.

look at you sly guy trying to flip the script. good on you. Your response, standing up for yourself and shit talking back is almost as gratifying as if you had actually caved and cried.

50%

The chances of getting 1 trillion heads in a row is still 50%

Gambler's fallacy, my man

>The chances of getting 1 trillion heads in a row is still 50%
top kek

...

I think he meant the chances of getting tail after 1 trillion heads
check out these trips btw

what were the odds of me actually flipping the script?

This

this is the only post you need to read in the thread

Somewhat related, if you ask people to come up with "random" results of several coin tosses, they will give you results with shorter runs than the results of actual coin tosses.

Turns out the universe doesn't care about humans' desire for predictable, uniform randomness.

>Do you know the coin is fair beforehand
How would you ever know the fairness without doing the exact same thing, namely flipping it many times? A coin's fairness can only be a ratio of its historical results and is fundamentally uncertain.
>muh large numbers

If you get 5 heads in a row there is a hudge propability that one side is more heavy or there are heads at both sides of coins...

Unless digital coin is thrown, than by means of randomness some side of white noise radomness could have been generated from is more occuring in the reading. Thus with same noise imput the odds of trowing a head are still more persistent.

You should always bet on whichever result has come up most often, in case the coin isn't actually fair.
If you're wrong and it is fair you don't lose any EV.

Yes, thinking otherwise is the gambler's fallacy.

I feel like superposition has a major part to play in this. We are gods? Maybe

Each individual flip is 50/50. Specific sequences comprised of those flips are not 50/50 since we observe the sequence itself as an event. The flips that make those events still are 50/50 from subevent to subevent.

If you can prove it's equally weighted on both sides, how would it not be fair?

Are we counting the coin sitting in a rested state as a 50/50 chance in being either heads or tails?