You're playing a video game, and your weapon has a 5 percent chance of missing. In your next swing...

You're playing a video game, and your weapon has a 5 percent chance of missing. In your next swing, is the percent chance of you missing:
>A: 5 percent
>B:9.75 percent, as that was the chance you have of having at least 1 miss if you swing twice ([math]1-(1-.05)^2[/math]) and you already know the first attack wasn't the miss.

>A

>he keeps reposting the same bullshit, formulated in different ways

what? This is the first time I've posted this thread. What other thread do you think is mine? I don't make threads on Veeky Forums a lot.

kys

You showed me with that /b/ tier reply. brb killing myself.
Retard.

Are you askingg the difference between missing 1/2 x or missing 2/2 x ?

I accidentally lost a sentence.
>you swing once
>it's a hit
>you swing again
>question is what is the chance that it's a miss

If they are independent events, the probability of a miss is always 5%. As for the probability of a sequence of independent events just multiply the individual probabilities.

If the game has no "memory" then the chances of missing are always 5 percent.
But we can't know that without seeing the code the program runs. The programmers may alter the odds on successive tries, either to make the game more exciting or to encourage you to make additional micropayments.

So you mean that the subsequent odds may as well be coded in and wouldn't have to mathematically check out from a 5% single miss?

Or the RNG implementation is crappy to make it run fast and the subsequent odds are altered

Its A. It doesnt have a memory of what happened before.

Gamblers fallacy is such a hard concept!

Yes.
Video slot machines are scheduled to 'pay off' with a certain frequency. You didn't think computer-generated images of whirling reels were random, did you.

Don't trust electronic voting machines unless you can see their internal code either.

Is this an XCOM thread?

Are you saying the potus election was rigged

Only stating the oft-proven fact that voting machines are remarkably easy to hack. Physical access makes it easier, but isn't absolutely necessary.
Manufacturers try to keep workings hidden ("Proprietary trade secrets") but when forced to open up, code often a poorly-written kudge without even the basic security checks for parity, overflow, illegal combinations of inputs, etc.

I never said the POTUS was an incompetent, lying, narcissistic, ego-maniacal, sociopath
and I'm offended by any implication that I did so!!

non uniform rng isn't unheard of in video games
you could have a probability distribution that increases with every fail that has the same expected values as a uniform chance
this is commonplace in competitive multiplayer video games where often players die in a few hits because it makes randomness more consistent over small sample sizes

ITT: People who somehow think their inner intuitions are smarter than the best mathematicians in the world.

I find it pretty funny that out of all the replies literally only 2 people answered the question

This is literally the gambler's fallacy worded in a "mathy" way
It has 20 replies
I don't know what I expected from the same board that is stumped by Zeno's paradoxes, though.