Yup, that's me...
>
>
>>
>> Each event is *physically* dependent upon the outcomes of each
>> previous event.
>>
>> In flipping coins, each event is *independent* of previous events.
>> There is no "guiding hand." Each flip has the same probability of
>> coming up heads as the previous events, no matter what their outcomes
>> were.
>
>Yes, if you don't know the history of previous flips.
Nope. It doesn't matter.
>
>I have explained to you many times. Pay attention!
If you weren't such a psychological curiosity, and thereby kind of
entertaining, I wouldn't still be here. d8-)
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> But you have been arguing it is always the same theological odds whether
>>> you know the history or not.
>>
>> Theology has nothing to do with it.
>
>Late at night. The typing assistant (software) thought I was typing this
>and I failed to spot it.
Let the software place your bets. You'll probably come out better.
They did. He just didn't know it.
>
>Do you know what "Russian roulette" is?
I've never played it. It's a health risk. They don't have that game in
Atlantic City casinos.
>
>You are supposed to SPIN THE CYLINDER.
Oh. I thought you were just letting each one pull the trigger in
sequence.
Then the odds are 1:6 for each of them.
>
>So for every guy pulling the trigger, the odds are always the same 1/6
>in getting the bullet.
Correct.
>
>But for you, probability and statistics predict that every six guys
>pulling the trigger, one will get the bullet.
Nope. The chance is 0.401877 that one will get the bullet.
The probability doesn't change for each one to get shot -- it's 1:6 or
0.166667 for each one. But the chance that ONE will get shot, out of
six, is 0.401877. That is, one and only one. You can't reload if one
gets shot. That would make it complicated <g>, but the odds for each
individual would remain 1:6, even if the second guy got shot and you
reloaded before the third one shot.
>
>So if you have already grabbed five guys from the hallway to pull the
>trigger and they all survived to walk away, then you know the bullet is
>OVERDUE.
Nope. The odds of any individual one of the six getting shot is still
1:6, or 0.16667, right up to the last one.
>
>The odds of each subsequent guy getting the bullet are getting higher
>and higher, because you know the history.
Nope. Now that we're spinning the cylinder each time, it remains 1:6
for each one of them and previous events don't change that.
Yeah, I did.
>
>The same as usual, you Google shit up and present something you don't
>even understand to back you up.
Uh, I understand it. I edited medical statistics for six years, and I
ran marketing studies (which use "social studies" statistics) for two
years prior to that. I did the statistics.
>
>
>>
>> It's clear you have a weak understanding of probability. That wouldn't
>> be so bad if you were open to learning, but you're not. You got this
>> cockeyed idea in your head and you keep doubling-down on it.
>
>You Google something that faintly looks like your misguided idea and you
>think that's gospel.
I had three courses in statistics and probability and I practiced it
for eight years. I even used to remember the binomial theorem. But now
I have to look it up.
>
>>
>> So further discussion is fruitless. I hope you don't actually gamble,
>> because you'll have "sucker" written all over you if you follow your
>> thoughts about odds.
>>
>
>It is fruitless because you have lost the argument.
But I won the pot. d8-)
>
>The odds of the same event has different odds if you know the history of
>previous events.
Nope.
--
Ed Huntress