Look at it this way.
You tossed a coin a million times, this already happened. You marked an x on a card for heads and an o for tails and lay the card upside down. You count all the cards from the first two thirds, and there is an 80% incidence of heads. If you pick up a card from the last third, a random card from that set of cards, do you give it a 50 50 chance of being tails, or greater?
While you think of that, consider that casinos used to break people’s fingers for counting cards.
That is absolutely false - and provably so without any experimenting at all.
But you DO have to cooperate with the conversation.
“Cards” - “coins” – are you stoned?
It sounds like you’ve just created a scenario to ask me “won’t you believe in the gamblers fallacy in this particular scenario”, is that right? Are you trying to find some circumstance where I’ll agree with the gamblers fallacy?
He clearly doesn’t. He suckered me into spending an entire evening programming just to ignore the results.
I didn’t say anything beyond what I said. Would you give it 50 50 chance or greater?
What’s all the information available to me in this scenario? Do I know it was a fair coin for sure? Do I know anything about the distribution in the last third?
Stoned on science.
Yes, it is a fair coin. No, you know nothing about the last third except that the first two thirds gave 80% heads.
Like I said.
Still miffed nobody liked my joke
I still think he is brighter than most involved here.
Want to participate in a discussion to prove the truth or not?
No, I don’t believe in the gamblers fallacy, so I don’t believe any weird statistic for the first two thirds tells you anything about the last third.
I do too, that’s why I’m so fucking annoyed. I expect someone like Motor to be immune to evidence, but not this guy.
Yeah, sure, why not?
while you blatantly ignore the evidence of casinos breaking fingers and people making millions off of the premise that if you know the incidence of previous card flips, you can assign non 50 50 odds to what the next card will be?
Counting cards is NOT a matter of the gamblers fallacy, you are incredibly misinformed if you think it operates on the same principal you’re using here.
Counting cards works because casinos continue using the same decks without shuffling them. It works because it’s explicitly NOT random.
The example I gave you is not random in that sense either, the coin has been flipped a million times, the card is there, the set exists.
Okay -
I asked some questions - you try to give truly honest answers.
First -
You do believe in logic, right? - that opposing theories can’t both be right? - lack of contradiction?
Everything from here on out is going to depend on that.
You think it’s not random, because you’re still hooked on the gamblers fallacy. If you really paid attention to every experiment ran tonight, you would have lost some faith in the gamblers fallacy.
Alright: I’ll lay this out in what I think are simple terms… 0=loss, 1=win
I’ll do this cantor style…
1.) 1111111111… always win
2.) 001001001… lost more than you win but never completely lose
3.) 111011101110… win more than you lose but never completely win
4.) 00000000000… always lose
Now.
Based on pure randomness all these categories should be 25% each.
But. Nobody is: 111111111…
That’s a hack. We’ve been hacked.