It's the same fallacy that's been mentioned a dozen times before. Each event is independent of the previous. There is no "gravity." What does happen is, if you have 10 flips of one in a row (the probability of which is very low), over a very large sample, those 10 flips are negated by the fact that the subsequent thousands or millions of flips had a probability of being heads of 50%. The fact that these events are independent, not part of a "sequence" or influenced by anything else, is the very foundation of statistical testing.
Probably about 5300. Wonder what the post count for this thread was when this topic started? (You made a wrong assumption Charlie.) I was referring to this thread's post count. Not mine and not the posters. (You made a wrong assumption Charlie.) Probably threw out Dwight's back too.
Yes, I agree, it's always 50/50, but I understand the original statement differently. If you start a sequence of a 100 flips and you're at 35/15 halfway through, it's completely rational to expect that you'll get closer to the original probability when you expand your sample to 100. Probability on a single flip stays the same, but the larger sample will self correct the imbalance and bring it closer to its original 50/50. I.e. it's a lot more likely that after 100 flips, your final result will around 60/40, than stay at around 70/30 or even higher.
Maybe you guys should consider starting a thread in Hangout about odds. If you don't, the odds of this thread staying open are apt to approach 1 in 10.
Of course, the statistically rational way of thinking is that over all the 100 flips in this example will produce a 60-40 split, because statistically, the remaining 50 splits can expect a 25-25 result. The poster did not say that. He said the odds would actually increase that tails would occur more often on the next set of 50 flips. He did not say that 70% will statistically drop to 60%. Now if the argument is that statistically speaking tails will occur more often on the second set of 50 flips than what occurred on the first set of 50 flips, then that is correct.
So you're saying if we start 10 cyberx threads in the GARM the odds for a quality thread get higher with each thread?
I'm not really sure what it is you're going for by calling me Charlie, but I have no doubt in my mind that it's ****ing idiotic. I'm done arguing about this with you. It's clear that you won't accept rational explanation as to why almost every single assumption you've made is completely wrong, so at this point, I'm not going to help you aggregate more and more posts about this.
1. I'm sorry, I honestly thought your first name was Charlie. 2. I'm not the one making assumptions. I have simply refuted the assumption that New Orleans is more likely to sustain a major injury in the 2014-15 season than the Rockets. That is just a guess based on an assumption.
