the gamblers fallacy is to believe that if a flipped coin come ups heads more frequently than tails it is more likely that the next result should be tails when it is still 50 50. If we had a coin that landed heads everytime it was flipped until the heat death of the universe there would be no way to prove that it is 50 50.
Not sure if related but the chance of getting 777777777 and 985720848 as a post is the same yet the infinity of numbers that is not repeating is less than the infinity of numbers that is
It is true, that from a purely theoretical point of view, the Gambler's fallacy really is a fallacy. But this relies on assumptions such as the ability to produce truly random numbers.
For example, consider a simple PRNG such as the linear congruential generator. Now, if you simulate coin tosses with it, and you have gotten more heads than tails so far, then the probability for getting tails is higher than getting heads. This is simply because you are picking up values out of a finite-sized imaginary jar.
Furthermore, even in real life, things like roulette and card shuffling are pseudorandom as well, meaning that there exist hidden underlying patterns that ultimately determine what the outcomes will be.
Carson Lewis
Only applies to equal probably distributions like dice or coins.
Chase Carter
muh large number law
Daniel Garcia
The chance of getting exactly 77777777 is the same as getting exactly 985720848. But the chance of getting any 9 digits repeating is lower than not getting any 9 digits repeating
Cooper Wood
if you flip coins ad nauseam, or 1000 times, the number of heads will come equally to the number of tails.
Julian Campbell
Nope, you can't guarantee that
Brandon Bailey
>hidden underlying patterns that ultimately determine what the outcomes will be
very interesting
any known examples of this you could point to?
cool stuff. it borders on the philosophical/religious.
Daniel Richardson
repeating numbers make nimgok happy. ooga booga grug think repeating numbers have prophetic value, ooga booga
Just like real gambling the system is rigged and bots win.
On most boards you can keep hitting f5 and seeing the latest number, then click post a few seconds before trips.
But for quints most people use a bot.
No gambling falacy imo you normally can shoot till you get it. There is no sunlen cost so no rush.
Zachary Flores
Not him, but in an example like Roulette, the wheel itself is physical, so each wheel may have slight tendencies (sticky spots in the mechanism, very slightly uneven rolling surface in places, etc.) that may not be easily noticable in the short term but may be detectable in a statistical analysis, perhaps.
Jonathan Thomas
This is true, but would PRNG be a better model? The gamblers fallacy is still likely false as seemingly uniform probabilities simply aren't uniform. I mean, just expecting your favourite event to happen just because that it hasn't happened before completely disregards the question whether the event is likely in the first place! Then, gamblers fallacy reduces to ignoring the "base values" in conditional probability, another fallacy.
Connor Wood
No its not theyre both 9^9
Logan Miller
stephen wolframs - a new kind of science lel
Cameron Foster
How to almost always win at gamble: Start at base stake of X. Lets say 1$. When you loose, double your previous stake. When you win, go back to base stake of 1$. With enough capital (for example 1.000$) you basically cannot loose since losing 10 takes in a row (with 50% win chance for example) which you have to accomplish to loose all your money at once will happen with 0,09% which is extremely unlikely, and if you make more money, the chances will be even lower. Prove me wrong, Veeky Forums
Hunter Reed
The inverse rule is true.
If an ostensibly random physical system produces the same number repeatedly, it becomes more and more likely that there is a bias towards that number.
>Not sure if related but the chance of getting 777777777 and 985720848 as a post is the same they're both pretty much zero, as it would require the forum to exist for a few more centuries, the first one just a few less centuries though
