If you flip a coin 99 times and it always comes up heads, what is the probability that it will come up heads on the next flip? The statistician will tell you 50%. At some point you have to start believing that the coin isn't perfectly balanced.
Hmm , if 99 times and looks like the coin is probably not that fair enough, we use rules of succession by laplace , 99 divided by 100 that would be almost the probability like how the sun rises ☀️🌞 which is 99% of the time
6 times in a row is all I need. The chance of it happen is 1:128 and that mean I'm going against an overwelming odd (less than 1%) or something exceptional compare to normal days. Better pick a different game at that point lol
There *is* a pattern in there: ultimately, on a long enough timeline, the average number of heads/tails will be 50/50. How many times you need to flip to get within a specific approximation of 50% is where there is no pattern. Two tosses might be all you need. Maybe 10, maybe a million.
Great video! I work in PR for an online casino, and people are always asking me if this or that "betting system" will work. Betting systems actually exploit the gambler's fallacy because they tell people to bet on the expectation that a certain outcome is 'due' in roulette, craps or slots. If only people thought a bit they'd realize that if a betting system could beat the house, casinos would go out of business in a flash!
Gamblers Fallacy never made sense to me. When reasoning from a Set then it is entirely rational to assume that you will get a heads after rolling 4 tales. If 2 people are flipping coins all day long, The guy who bets on heads after every consecutive set of 4 tales will win more often then the guy who assigns 50/50 probability to the coin after every 4 consecutive tales.
@@danielm5161 From this, we can discard any sets that dont begin with 4 in a row, leaving us with 2 possibilities... that's 50%. TTTTH TTTTT Please explain your edge 😂
@@palatusgames8800 I understand the gamblers fallacy since my last comment. It's hard for my brain to square the fact that if you flip a coin 100 times, you should have roughly 50 heads and 50 tails. But getting 50 heads in a ROW is extremely unlikely. So if a set of 100 flips has already been made, you can safely bet far more then 50/50 odds that nowhere in that set of 100 flips was a heads flipped 50 times in a row. But if you are the one flipping then you the flipper are brought a long with the coin in it's unlikely temporal state of 49 heads in a row so the 50th flip is still 50/50. I find it fascinating.
Gamblers Fallacy is weird. Each individual toss is 50/50, but if you bet on frequencies (3 heads frequencies are more common then 4 heads frequencies) then it isn't 50/50 anymore (I think). It's hard to really grasp why those two situations can't be correlated in a useful way when betting.
It is still 50/50. It just becomes “less likely” if you will. I’m no statistician, nor a genius math guy but I have a ton of experience w/ probability analysis in both the mkt & sports betting. The reason it’s less likely for 3 in a row rather than 4 in a row is how the probability would be calculated, since each toss is independent of the prior one(basically the root of the gambler’s fallacy) For 3 tosses the equation is: .5^3 = .125 For 4 tosses the equation is: .5^4 =.0625 This does present a unique angle in the markets because probabilistically a trend-based strategy shouldn’t perform any better than a range-based strategy in a pure free market. (A true free market doesn’t exist in our sh1t Keynesian system) This is is a small example of why economics & finance will never be mastered (even by extremely complex ML algos)
@@edgeprobability The issue is that the very framing of what determines an unlikely sequence is arbitrary. Why is 100 heads in a ROW "unlikely"? 100 heads in a row is equal to any other sequence that may just by chance unfold. The sequence of any ROW stands out to us because a human brain can easily identify that, but pre-defining any other arrangement of tails/heads flips would be just as unlikely (like 32 heads in a row followed by 16 tails, 13 heads, 2 tails and then 3 more heads). That specific sequence is just as unlikely as the total of flips unfolding in a ROW of the same flips. Probability is dependent on how detailed your preconditions are.
this reminds me of the monty hall problem. why it gets constantly misunderstood *is* because of the gamblers fallacy, what this guy talks about here.. only now, ive been able to put it into words.
There's a premise flaw in the argument over what coin toss result to expect next. Seeing 7 out of 9 "tails" results brings one to suspect that the coin is not fair after all and that the odds are greatly in favour of another tails. Pattern recognition is a tool by which we can determine probabilities in real world situations, and in fact this type of inductive reasoning is the basis for a lot of science.
I'm a professional translator and I'm currently working on translating the series into Russian for the people from the Zeitgeist movement. It'll be completed in a couple of days. If you wish, I can contact you when I'm done and send the text broken down into same pieces as they appear in the video. I read my YT PM regularly, so you may reply there directly.
I know this has a lot to do with definitions and philosophy but he said in one sentence that the next flip of the coin is 50/50 *CHANCE* . And in very next sentence, he says that LUCK has nothing to do with it. Explain that please... and (2) also, how do these two different things jive? If you bet money beforehand that 10 flips of a coin would produce 5 heads, but after first 6 flips produced 6 tails in a row, wouldn't you say that the probability of the next flip would be heads? (given the average of ten flips) It seems like a paradox between betting on the group chance and individual chance. Someone smarter please explain.
@Neoplantski Probability doesn't work that way. With 100 perfect coin flips, the odds of it being EXACTLY a 50/50 split is about 8%, assuming my math is right. I think the formula is (n choose n/2)/(2^n), n being 100. 40 heads and 60 tails is about 1%, and the probability of it being BETWEEN 60/40 and 40/60 is about 96.5%. The trick is that as n grows arbitrarily large, the standard deviation, as a FRACTION of n, becomes arbitrarily small.
For each individual coin flip the chance is 50 50. However the odds of getting heads heads heads heads heads heads heads heads is very low. So I guest its how you luck at it.
I agree, "gamblers fallacy" never made sense to me. When reasoning from a Set then it is entirely rational to assume that you will get a heads after rolling 4 tales. If 2 people are flipping coins all day long, The guy who bets on heads after every consecutive set of 4 tales will win more often then the guy who assigns 50/50 probability to the coin after every 4 consecutive tales.
Reason I say this was because I was messing around tossing a coin I chucked in the air on to my table it landed on the table, started to spin, then stopped in the up right position. It was awesome.
Resently I read Dostoyevsky's "Gambler", and it was funny how well the gambler's fallacy was portrayed in it, BEing a gambler himself, Dostoyevsky probably did believe himself that only a stupid gambler bets on a zero, after making a killing on it, when a smart gambler knows the zero isn't due for a while. However casino's make money because people believe they can outsmart the odds. Gambler's fallacy is a small part of it.
Casino's don't make money because of the gamblers fallacy. That is quite a poor example. The gamblers fallacy would set the casino to break even after a long period of business (assuming non-skill based games). Casino's make money because the odds of the games are in their favor (and other sketchy tactics).
Take roulette for example, if you bet on 1 of the 2 colours for a 1 to 1 payout if you win. 18 black numbers, 18 red numbers... and one green '0' (European roulette). The probability of landing on a colour of your choice is 18 / (18+18+1) = 0.4685. Less than half (0.500). The house has an advantage. Over the course of many rounds played, you eventually make a loss.
"Casino's don't make money because of the gamblers fallacy." They actually do. Although you are right. The gamblers' fallacy leads people into believing they can win. That they have an edge when they don't have one. So they play. The odds of the game make them loose in the long run, so the casino makes a profit. Both are required for the casino to make a profit. If all people would behave strictly rational and logical no one will go to the casino in the first place. And the casino would lose a lot of money due to fixed costs. So, yes, they need this and other fallacies to make money. You just failed to address all the layers of the problem. It's not only stochastic but also psychology and marketing. Without gamblers, no profit.
This is confusing to me. It's saying that a coin is equally probable to land on heads 10 times in a row, as heads 5 times out of 10. I'm not a gambler, but seeing a coin land heads 9 times would have me immediately call tails on the next flip. Would that specific case make me land in the gambler's fallacy? So now I'm speculating: In a real gambling situation the games are more complex than simple coinflips, making the real patterns harder/impossible to determine, leading to this desire to find a pattern where there are none, which is what the gambler's fallacy is all about. Am I onto something?
It's not because "our brains find patterns" it just makes sense, the odds are very unlikely to get a big streak of one or the other, but no one talks about that.
I agree, I was just pointing out that it generally makes more sense to speak of probabilities than certainties, since correlation can never truly prove causation. This is why scientific theories are called "theories". It makes sense to assume such fundamental things are real as, if nothing else, a methodological assumption. Thinking any other way would lead to solipsism.
You seem to be conflating the colloquial use of "theory" with the scientific use of the term. People usually mean "hunch" or "hypothesis" when they use the term "theory". In science, theory doesn't mean hypothesis, it means a proven hypothesis as a result of the scientific method. So a scientific theory is an accepted truth.
Cause and effect is one of the most fundamental observations of the universe and is the basis of all the laws of physics, everything that exists in the universe and everything that has happened and will ever happen. If you're taking the position that nothing can be known for certain, then sure, cause and effect might not exist, the universe itself might not exist, we might all be dreaming right now etc. But if you're genuinely skeptical about cause and effect then you might as well know nothing.
Your argument is fallacious. He's not saying cause and effect doesn't exist. Or that we can never know anything. He's saying correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. So we shouldn't automatically assume that because A happened before B, B is a product of A. That's a fallacy. We need to discard other options.
It's so easy to misunderstand the gamblers fallacy. Getting heads on one toss is 50%. However in a series of 4 coin tosses there's a 6.25% chance of 4 heads in a row. Some who misunderstand the gambler's fallacy will say "no, since it's always 50% - you're just as likely to get 4 heads in a row than anything else". Which is incorrect. It's hard to intuitively grasp the difference between a series of 4 compared to the 4th toss. You can't say that the 4th toss will be more likely to end up a certain way because of probability. But you can say ahead of time that 4 heads in a row is unlikely. Each toss is 50% - but if you count a series of 4 tosses that's 50% ^ 4.
I never understood what the "Gamblers Fallacy" is actually trying to imply. As you have pointed out, it is rational when reasoning around a set of flips to think a tales is coming up after 3 consecutive heads. You can use automated coin flippers to prove this type of thing. So what exactly is the fallacy?
Daniel Melendez: It’s basically about not realizing the difference between betting on a sequence of events and betting on a single event. When betting on a sequence of 4 coin tosses there’s a 6.25% chance of 4 heads in a row. The Gambler’s fallacy would be someone who goes ”why the hell would I bet on a sequence of coin tosses when I can just sit around near a coin tossing game - and as soon as they get 3 heads in a row - I’ll make a bet on the next SINGLE coin toss! Cause then that single toss has an 83.75% of resulting in tails!” People forget that a single coin toss bet is always 50-50 and the only time the conditions change is when you bet on a sequence of multiple coin tosses
the word "unlikely" has no meaning in probability Probability defines the likelyhood of a specific event happening with a value from 0 to 1 flipping 1 coin 4 times is the same as flipping 4 coins at the same time the 4th coin doesnt know how the other 3 landed, so it always has a 50 50 chance of being heads or tails when you flip four times there are 16 possible outcomes each of the 16 outcomes are equally probable (likely) HHHH HHHT HHTH HHTT HTHH HTHT HTTH HTTT THHH THHT THTH THTT TTHH TTHT TTTH TTTT When you play roulette your odds of winning 4 bets in a row betting red or black is 1 out of those 16 possible outcomes: 6.25% (ignoring the green numbers) If you let your bet ride and win all four times you end up with 16 times your original bet simple
@Alexthebling For a conventional flat-disc type coin, any weight "on one side" will also be on the other, unlike with a six-sided die (for example). So actually making a trick coin is much harder than that. Most coins in most countries are fair.
flipping a coin never seemed like a good example to me...you could just get used to flipping it with such finesse and precission that it will always land heads/tails....so its not
D S Well nothing in our universe is completely random but something might seem random when it’s out of our control. Flipping a coin with that level of precision is rather inhuman
@TinQuasimodo I considered magneto being in the area. I also considered shooting him if so, so as to get my reality back. But it hit me, the guy can really stop a bullet cant he? So I set out to master the kamehameha wave, which he has no influence over, considering this is pure ki. When I first started it was quite messy really. Goku makes it look so easy. You have to be as still as a rock when executing it, which was a task in and of itself, seeing as the thing has much leverage.
@vgmjbpkcdmqd But this is an event in an event, you know what I mean? You flipping a coin 100 times is one event that has its own probabilities. And then each coin flip has its own probability which is exactly 50 50. Does that make sense?
Very true, but if I toss a coin 99 times the probability should be close to 50/50 or else there is some external influence. If I get 98 tails,out of 99, while not impossible, this is highly unlikely, and in such a case, its hard to say, but I would be right to assume that the law of probability will be satisfied at some point, and start picking out heads, because its more probable that heads will show up, then that the stupid simple coin will break the laws of probability and give me more tails.
You defined the fallacy well . . . But I wish you would have disproved it rather than go off on a tangent about the history of probability. The part that got me was understanding that the probability of flipping H H H H is equal to H H H T So while, yes, it’s very unlikely to flip 10 heads in a row; it’s equally unlikely to flip 9 heads and 1 tails!
Gamblers Fallacy never made sense to me. When reasoning from a Set then it is entirely rational to assume that you will get a heads after rolling 4 tales. If 2 people are flipping coins all day long, The guy who bets on heads after every consecutive set of 4 tales will win more often then the guy who assigns 50/50 probability to the coin after every 4 consecutive tales.
Daniel Melendez yes that is a rational thought, but it is not mathematically accurate and that is the fallacy. What you said is actually incorrect because flipping 4 heads in a row is exactly as likely as flipping 3 heads and 1 tails. 50% chance for heads or tails. Prob of HHHH = 0.5x0.5x0.5x0.5 = 0.0625 Prob of HHHT = 0.5x0.5x0.5x0.5 . . . Clearly they are the same
@@johnfraser4591 That is only true if you flip 4 times only. But you flip 100 times, you will flip sets of HHHT more often then sets of HHHH (and HHHHH less likely still).
Daniel Melendez I don’t think so, it would be the same just a more complicated way of calculating it. It would have to be a different probability than 50/50 in order to change that. However, the probability of HHHT is less than HHHH + THHH + TTHH + TTTH + TTTT and that may be why it is confusing. There are multiple ways for it to play out but only one has a heads as the next roll
@@johnfraser4591 I understand now. What is strange is that if you flip 100 times, and then bet on what is more common 3 Consecutive sets of Heads or 4 Consecutive sets of Heads, then it is more probable that there will be more 3 consecutive heads sets then 4 consecutive heads sets. It seems like that information would be useful in betting on individual flip bets.
"our brains are too good at seeing patterns, it sees patterns that aren't there" That's not being good at seeing patterns, that's actually bad at seeing patterns. Our brains are bad at seeing patterns.
To be slightly more accurate: you have a 50% chance of winning a coin toss, *assuming that the coin is evenly weighted*. If tails appears to be doing improbably well, it is possible that it is doing so because the coin was not evenly weighted, and your assumption was false.
it's actually pretty arguable that this is a fallacy to an extent. obviously the idea of being on a roll is a fallacy, however, i would argue that getting the same result multiple times in a row on a 50% chance is less likely than getting mixed results. for example, if you had just decided you will flip the coin 10 times, it is extremely likely that both results will show up at some point during the 10 flips. the odds of only one result showing up consecutively for all 10 flips is extremely low. the idea is not that each flip of the coin lowers the chance of it landing on a specific side. it is always a 50% chance. but getting the same result from a 50% chance several times in a row has a separate percentage chance that needs to be calculated. flipping heads twice in a row has a 25% chance of happening. this is not a 25% chance of getting heads on a second flip, but rather a 25% chance overall, for both of the flips. this is because you are combining two 50% chance actions.
Jim Walker i already explained how that is true, but the fact that there is a secondary percentage that both your first and second flip will have the same result is also true. it does not change your second flip to a 25% chance, however, the combined flips do in fact equal 25%. this secondary percentage is already reliant on the fact that all coin flips will be a 50% chance, so your comment is completely irrelevant.
It's Just Milk I Swear There is no such thing as a first or secondary flip. All flips have the same result 50/50. That is the gambler's fallacy. Each flip is individual and not related to any other flip. Imposing a such patterns is a fallacy. ua-cam.com/video/K8SkCh-n4rw/v-deo.html
Jim Walker yes, there is. if i decide i will flip a coin three times in a row, there will be a first, second, and third flip. any moron could figure that out. ALL three flips will be a 50/50 chance, however the combined actions of flipping the coin all three times requires a second calculation of percentage to determine the result. because obviously, my odds of flipping heads 3 times in row is not 50/50. it is 50% + 50% + 50%. this is not a fallacy, your personal incredulity however, is a fallacy.
@vgmjbpkcdmqd You make it sound like I'm trying not to be proven wrong or stupid. I thought we were having a normal conversation here, if I'm wrong so what? I'm not trying to be right or prove you wrong at all. Just trying to get something clear. Anyway, I see what you mean and agree that it has no effect on future result. The last coin flip has nothing to do with the next, but what I'm saying is the net coin flips, have a probability of 50/50.
0:40 "just aren't there"... all the patterns we see are constructed, and are real, in our minds. What you mean is that only some of them tell us something useful about the world. 0:45 "50%". You are assuming an ideal coin, and ideal coin flipper, which you did not state. You need to factor in the chances that the coin and/or flipper may be biased, and by how much, and for what reason.
Though it's hard to admit, in the end we don't even know that cause and effect exist. There are quite a few things like this everyone assumes; otherwise we couldn't have science.
I'd say there is a greater chance the coin would land tails. When I was a kid I developed the skill to dictate the results of my indoor coin flips to an accuracy greater than 95%. It all boiled down to precise muscle memory and subtle tricks. If you pay attention to the side the flipper starts on each time, a flipping habit could skew the 50/50 probability, for instance: When the flipper starts on heads, it lands heads. When the flipper starts on tails, it lands tails. He naturally rotates the coin when placing it on his thumb causing a 'heads-tail-heads-tail' pattern however, the individual probability for each flip is not 50/50. If I expand on my initial statement I'd *want* to say there is a greater chance the coin would land tails, but in all honesty I'd have to be there in person to make my prediction.
I am a victim of gambler's fallacy, i can't warp up my mind to understand something like in this example , if i toss a coin 10 times the chance that i will get only head 10 times in a row is (0.5)^10 and if you say 9 of that is head it's (0.5)^9 that's 0.19%chance of happening, it's obviously 99.81% more likely to be a tail and you are telling me it's 50%. i hate my brain i still can't convince it.
@vgmjbpkcdmqd You'd be pretty vexed if you flipped a coin 100 times and got 98 heads. You would expect roughly 50 50. This is the reason Carl Sagan says its unlikely that we are alone in the universe.
This series would be useful if it wasn't so obviously geared towards attempting to convince people of politically correct narratives such as Global Warming, Evolution, Vaccinations and such. It's presented as a way to think logically and in an unbiased fashion but subtely, and deceptively, it places these subjects in the midst of logical discussion, presenting them as fact, without actually discussing the logic and science behind them. Disappointing
Global warming, evolution and vaccinations are very well regarded amongst the science community (enough for it to be considered a consensus). UA-cam isn't really the best place for in-depth learning about these topics, instead you should pop into a university and have a chat with the lecturers & scientists. It'll be fun! *I'm an archaeologist by education btw
"Because they presented no specific evidence for these issues in their series of short videos that are not specifically about these issues, this implies that these examples are not fact and are just politically correct narratives." Hmm. Sorry, it doesn't hold water.
"So while our brains see patterns,...it takes science to prove that these patterns are real."
Awesome line. Keep them videos coming!
If you flip a coin 99 times and it always comes up heads, what is the probability that it will come up heads on the next flip? The statistician will tell you 50%. At some point you have to start believing that the coin isn't perfectly balanced.
these replies suck
Hmm , if 99 times and looks like the coin is probably not that fair enough, we use rules of succession by laplace , 99 divided by 100 that would be almost the probability like how the sun rises ☀️🌞 which is 99% of the time
@@gangstasteve5753 I already flagged the spams. very intrusive
6 times in a row is all I need. The chance of it happen is 1:128 and that mean I'm going against an overwelming odd (less than 1%) or something exceptional compare to normal days. Better pick a different game at that point lol
There *is* a pattern in there: ultimately, on a long enough timeline, the average number of heads/tails will be 50/50. How many times you need to flip to get within a specific approximation of 50% is where there is no pattern. Two tosses might be all you need. Maybe 10, maybe a million.
Great video! I work in PR for an online casino, and people are always asking me if this or that "betting system" will work. Betting systems actually exploit the gambler's fallacy because they tell people to bet on the expectation that a certain outcome is 'due' in roulette, craps or slots. If only people thought a bit they'd realize that if a betting system could beat the house, casinos would go out of business in a flash!
Gamblers Fallacy never made sense to me. When reasoning from a Set then it is entirely rational to assume that you will get a heads after rolling 4 tales. If 2 people are flipping coins all day long, The guy who bets on heads after every consecutive set of 4 tales will win more often then the guy who assigns 50/50 probability to the coin after every 4 consecutive tales.
@@danielm5161 From this, we can discard any sets that dont begin with 4 in a row, leaving us with 2 possibilities... that's 50%.
TTTTH
TTTTT
Please explain your edge 😂
@@palatusgames8800 I understand the gamblers fallacy since my last comment. It's hard for my brain to square the fact that if you flip a coin 100 times, you should have roughly 50 heads and 50 tails. But getting 50 heads in a ROW is extremely unlikely. So if a set of 100 flips has already been made, you can safely bet far more then 50/50 odds that nowhere in that set of 100 flips was a heads flipped 50 times in a row. But if you are the one flipping then you the flipper are brought a long with the coin in it's unlikely temporal state of 49 heads in a row so the 50th flip is still 50/50. I find it fascinating.
Gamblers Fallacy is weird. Each individual toss is 50/50, but if you bet on frequencies (3 heads frequencies are more common then 4 heads frequencies) then it isn't 50/50 anymore (I think). It's hard to really grasp why those two situations can't be correlated in a useful way when betting.
Can this theory be applied to sports betting to find good bets? Do advise.
It is still 50/50. It just becomes “less likely” if you will. I’m no statistician, nor a genius math guy but I have a ton of experience w/ probability analysis in both the mkt & sports betting.
The reason it’s less likely for 3 in a row rather than 4 in a row is how the probability would be calculated, since each toss is independent of the prior one(basically the root of the gambler’s fallacy)
For 3 tosses the equation is: .5^3 = .125
For 4 tosses the equation is: .5^4 =.0625
This does present a unique angle in the markets because probabilistically a trend-based strategy shouldn’t perform any better than a range-based strategy in a pure free market. (A true free market doesn’t exist in our sh1t Keynesian system) This is is a small example of why economics & finance will never be mastered (even by extremely complex ML algos)
@@AlastorFate well it can be used to limit a sportsbook’s advantage over you(VIG), which is a start to making +EV bets.
@@edgeprobability The issue is that the very framing of what determines an unlikely sequence is arbitrary. Why is 100 heads in a ROW "unlikely"? 100 heads in a row is equal to any other sequence that may just by chance unfold. The sequence of any ROW stands out to us because a human brain can easily identify that, but pre-defining any other arrangement of tails/heads flips would be just as unlikely (like 32 heads in a row followed by 16 tails, 13 heads, 2 tails and then 3 more heads). That specific sequence is just as unlikely as the total of flips unfolding in a ROW of the same flips. Probability is dependent on how detailed your preconditions are.
I generally consider myself as a rational thinker, but this thing almost *always* goes against my intuition despite the fact that I know it's wrong.
its not against intuition, there is another dimension of laws which is not empiricaly observed. Its called karma.
this reminds me of the monty hall problem.
why it gets constantly misunderstood *is* because of the gamblers fallacy, what this guy talks about here.. only now, ive been able to put it into words.
There's a premise flaw in the argument over what coin toss result to expect next. Seeing 7 out of 9 "tails" results brings one to suspect that the coin is not fair after all and that the odds are greatly in favour of another tails. Pattern recognition is a tool by which we can determine probabilities in real world situations, and in fact this type of inductive reasoning is the basis for a lot of science.
I'm a professional translator and I'm currently working on translating the series into Russian for the people from the Zeitgeist movement. It'll be completed in a couple of days. If you wish, I can contact you when I'm done and send the text broken down into same pieces as they appear in the video. I read my YT PM regularly, so you may reply there directly.
I know this has a lot to do with definitions and philosophy but he said in one sentence that the next flip of the coin is 50/50 *CHANCE* . And in very next sentence, he says that LUCK has nothing to do with it. Explain that please... and (2) also, how do these two different things jive? If you bet money beforehand that 10 flips of a coin would produce 5 heads, but after first 6 flips produced 6 tails in a row, wouldn't you say that the probability of the next flip would be heads? (given the average of ten flips) It seems like a paradox between betting on the group chance and individual chance. Someone smarter please explain.
@Neoplantski Probability doesn't work that way. With 100 perfect coin flips, the odds of it being EXACTLY a 50/50 split is about 8%, assuming my math is right. I think the formula is (n choose n/2)/(2^n), n being 100. 40 heads and 60 tails is about 1%, and the probability of it being BETWEEN 60/40 and 40/60 is about 96.5%.
The trick is that as n grows arbitrarily large, the standard deviation, as a FRACTION of n, becomes arbitrarily small.
For each individual coin flip the chance is 50 50. However the odds of getting heads heads heads heads heads heads heads heads is very low. So I guest its how you luck at it.
I agree, "gamblers fallacy" never made sense to me. When reasoning from a Set then it is entirely rational to assume that you will get a heads after rolling 4 tales. If 2 people are flipping
coins all day long, The guy who bets on heads after every consecutive set of 4 tales will win more often then the guy who assigns 50/50 probability to the coin after every 4 consecutive tales.
My above comment is false. I understand the Gamblers Fallacy now, these videos are terrible at explaining it.
it is very low. but thats when you start counting from the first toss. if you already got 4 heads , then the chance of next one being head is 50/50
Reason I say this was because I was messing around tossing a coin I chucked in the air on to my table it landed on the table, started to spin, then stopped in the up right position. It was awesome.
thats the house's edge......
Getting permission to have them redubbed is tricker, but we'll keep your request in mind and will let you know. Thanks!
Resently I read Dostoyevsky's "Gambler", and it was funny how well the gambler's fallacy was portrayed in it, BEing a gambler himself, Dostoyevsky probably did believe himself that only a stupid gambler bets on a zero, after making a killing on it, when a smart gambler knows the zero isn't due for a while.
However casino's make money because people believe they can outsmart the odds. Gambler's fallacy is a small part of it.
i found Vsouce Veritasium and this channel this night... my brain is about to explode!!!
Casino's don't make money because of the gamblers fallacy. That is quite a poor example. The gamblers fallacy would set the casino to break even after a long period of business (assuming non-skill based games). Casino's make money because the odds of the games are in their favor (and other sketchy tactics).
Aaron TV so much, not money at all. People start to think that they MUST win soon so they keep playing.
Take roulette for example, if you bet on 1 of the 2 colours for a 1 to 1 payout if you win. 18 black numbers, 18 red numbers... and one green '0' (European roulette). The probability of landing on a colour of your choice is 18 / (18+18+1) = 0.4685. Less than half (0.500). The house has an advantage.
Over the course of many rounds played, you eventually make a loss.
It seems that you don’t understand the gambler’s fallacy Aaron TV
"Casino's don't make money because of the gamblers fallacy."
They actually do. Although you are right.
The gamblers' fallacy leads people into believing they can win. That they have an edge when they don't have one. So they play.
The odds of the game make them loose in the long run, so the casino makes a profit.
Both are required for the casino to make a profit. If all people would behave strictly rational and logical no one will go to the casino in the first place. And the casino would lose a lot of money due to fixed costs.
So, yes, they need this and other fallacies to make money. You just failed to address all the layers of the problem. It's not only stochastic but also psychology and marketing. Without gamblers, no profit.
This is confusing to me. It's saying that a coin is equally probable to land on heads 10 times in a row, as heads 5 times out of 10.
I'm not a gambler, but seeing a coin land heads 9 times would have me immediately call tails on the next flip. Would that specific case make me land in the gambler's fallacy?
So now I'm speculating: In a real gambling situation the games are more complex than simple coinflips, making the real patterns harder/impossible to determine, leading to this desire to find a pattern where there are none, which is what the gambler's fallacy is all about. Am I onto something?
No it doesn't say that
It's happening right now - eps 3 or season 2 up real soon :)
It's not because "our brains find patterns" it just makes sense, the odds are very unlikely to get a big streak of one or the other, but no one talks about that.
there is another dimension of laws which is not empiricaly observed. Its called karma. Thats why we dont see odd things.
I agree, I was just pointing out that it generally makes more sense to speak of probabilities than certainties, since correlation can never truly prove causation. This is why scientific theories are called "theories".
It makes sense to assume such fundamental things are real as, if nothing else, a methodological assumption. Thinking any other way would lead to solipsism.
You seem to be conflating the colloquial use of "theory" with the scientific use of the term. People usually mean "hunch" or "hypothesis" when they use the term "theory". In science, theory doesn't mean hypothesis, it means a proven hypothesis as a result of the scientific method. So a scientific theory is an accepted truth.
Incredibly useful and generous resource.
Cause and effect is one of the most fundamental observations of the universe and is the basis of all the laws of physics, everything that exists in the universe and everything that has happened and will ever happen. If you're taking the position that nothing can be known for certain, then sure, cause and effect might not exist, the universe itself might not exist, we might all be dreaming right now etc.
But if you're genuinely skeptical about cause and effect then you might as well know nothing.
Your argument is fallacious. He's not saying cause and effect doesn't exist. Or that we can never know anything. He's saying correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. So we shouldn't automatically assume that because A happened before B, B is a product of A. That's a fallacy. We need to discard other options.
It's so easy to misunderstand the gamblers fallacy. Getting heads on one toss is 50%. However in a series of 4 coin tosses there's a 6.25% chance of 4 heads in a row. Some who misunderstand the gambler's fallacy will say "no, since it's always 50% - you're just as likely to get 4 heads in a row than anything else". Which is incorrect.
It's hard to intuitively grasp the difference between a series of 4 compared to the 4th toss.
You can't say that the 4th toss will be more likely to end up a certain way because of probability.
But you can say ahead of time that 4 heads in a row is unlikely.
Each toss is 50% - but if you count a series of 4 tosses that's 50% ^ 4.
I never understood what the "Gamblers Fallacy" is actually trying to imply. As you have pointed out, it is rational when reasoning around a set of flips to think a tales is coming up after 3 consecutive heads. You can use automated coin flippers to prove this type of thing. So what exactly is the fallacy?
Daniel Melendez: It’s basically about not realizing the difference between betting on a sequence of events and betting on a single event.
When betting on a sequence of 4 coin tosses there’s a 6.25% chance of 4 heads in a row.
The Gambler’s fallacy would be someone who goes ”why the hell would I bet on a sequence of coin tosses when I can just sit around near a coin tossing game - and as soon as they get 3 heads in a row - I’ll make a bet on the next SINGLE coin toss! Cause then that single toss has an 83.75% of resulting in tails!”
People forget that a single coin toss bet is always 50-50 and the only time the conditions change is when you bet on a sequence of multiple coin tosses
the word "unlikely" has no meaning in probability
Probability defines the likelyhood of a specific event happening with a value from 0 to 1
flipping 1 coin 4 times is the same as flipping 4 coins at the same time
the 4th coin doesnt know how the other 3 landed, so it always has a 50 50 chance of being heads or tails
when you flip four times there are 16 possible outcomes
each of the 16 outcomes are equally probable (likely)
HHHH
HHHT
HHTH
HHTT
HTHH
HTHT
HTTH
HTTT
THHH
THHT
THTH
THTT
TTHH
TTHT
TTTH
TTTT
When you play roulette your odds of winning 4 bets in a row betting red or black is 1 out of those 16 possible outcomes: 6.25% (ignoring the green numbers)
If you let your bet ride and win all four times you end up with 16 times your original bet
simple
This is my favorite video of the series !!!
1:12 Woot! I haven't heard the "Pac Man dying" sound in over a decade. Nice to hear it again!
We've received offers to write transcripts for the videos in other languages. Would you like translate to Russian?
@Alexthebling For a conventional flat-disc type coin, any weight "on one side" will also be on the other, unlike with a six-sided die (for example). So actually making a trick coin is much harder than that. Most coins in most countries are fair.
flipping a coin never seemed like a good example to me...you could just get used to flipping it with such finesse and precission that it will always land heads/tails....so its not
D S Well nothing in our universe is completely random but something might seem random when it’s out of our control. Flipping a coin with that level of precision is rather inhuman
@TinQuasimodo I considered magneto being in the area. I also considered shooting him if so, so as to get my reality back. But it hit me, the guy can really stop a bullet cant he? So I set out to master the kamehameha wave, which he has no influence over, considering this is pure ki. When I first started it was quite messy really. Goku makes it look so easy. You have to be as still as a rock when executing it, which was a task in and of itself, seeing as the thing has much leverage.
@vgmjbpkcdmqd But this is an event in an event, you know what I mean? You flipping a coin 100 times is one event that has its own probabilities. And then each coin flip has its own probability which is exactly 50 50. Does that make sense?
This is just so brilliantly made!
It takes research/data* to prove an argument, not necessarily science.
If a heads side of a coin has more weight, it will be more likely to land heads down. And vice versa.
Okay but what about Dynamic Bayesian Networks?
This'll help me understand the Jurassic Park novels and love them even more.
Thunder _is_ caused by lightning..
yep
In the real world, yes. For the sake of argument and demonstration, as here, one has to assume or agree that the coin is fair.
What will Season 2 involve?
Actually there is more like a 49.9% chance of tails. 0.2% chance of it landing on the the edge, unless forced to a down position.
Very true, but if I toss a coin 99 times the probability should be close to 50/50 or else there is some external influence. If I get 98 tails,out of 99, while not impossible, this is highly unlikely, and in such a case, its hard to say, but I would be right to assume that the law of probability will be satisfied at some point, and start picking out heads, because its more probable that heads will show up, then that the stupid simple coin will break the laws of probability and give me more tails.
Is it a good kind of hurt? ;)
You know we have season 2 coming up? :)
Hi Semyon - yeah that would be great. PM it to us when you're done. Thanks!
We took this is school. Good info.
Good series, worth showing your kids.
Great video, homie.
You defined the fallacy well . . . But I wish you would have disproved it rather than go off on a tangent about the history of probability.
The part that got me was understanding that the probability of flipping H H H H is equal to H H H T
So while, yes, it’s very unlikely to flip 10 heads in a row; it’s equally unlikely to flip 9 heads and 1 tails!
Gamblers Fallacy never made sense to me. When reasoning from a Set then it is entirely rational to assume that you will get a heads after rolling 4 tales. If 2 people are flipping coins all day long, The guy who bets on heads after every consecutive set of 4 tales will win more often then the guy who assigns 50/50 probability to the coin after every 4 consecutive tales.
Daniel Melendez yes that is a rational thought, but it is not mathematically accurate and that is the fallacy. What you said is actually incorrect because flipping 4 heads in a row is exactly as likely as flipping 3 heads and 1 tails.
50% chance for heads or tails.
Prob of HHHH = 0.5x0.5x0.5x0.5 = 0.0625
Prob of HHHT = 0.5x0.5x0.5x0.5 . . .
Clearly they are the same
@@johnfraser4591 That is only true if you flip 4 times only. But you flip 100 times, you will flip sets of HHHT more often then sets of HHHH (and HHHHH less likely still).
Daniel Melendez I don’t think so, it would be the same just a more complicated way of calculating it. It would have to be a different probability than 50/50 in order to change that.
However, the probability of HHHT is less than HHHH + THHH + TTHH + TTTH + TTTT and that may be why it is confusing. There are multiple ways for it to play out but only one has a heads as the next roll
@@johnfraser4591 I understand now. What is strange is that if you flip 100 times, and then bet on what is more common 3 Consecutive sets of Heads or 4 Consecutive sets of Heads, then it is more probable that there will be more 3 consecutive heads sets then 4 consecutive heads sets. It seems like that information would be useful in betting on individual flip bets.
"our brains are too good at seeing patterns, it sees patterns that aren't there"
That's not being good at seeing patterns, that's actually bad at seeing patterns. Our brains are bad at seeing patterns.
To be slightly more accurate: you have a 50% chance of winning a coin toss, *assuming that the coin is evenly weighted*. If tails appears to be doing improbably well, it is possible that it is doing so because the coin was not evenly weighted, and your assumption was false.
You don't understand it. 👏🏼
it's actually pretty arguable that this is a fallacy to an extent.
obviously the idea of being on a roll is a fallacy, however, i would argue that getting the same result multiple times in a row on a 50% chance is less likely than getting mixed results.
for example, if you had just decided you will flip the coin 10 times, it is extremely likely that both results will show up at some point during the 10 flips. the odds of only one result showing up consecutively for all 10 flips is extremely low.
the idea is not that each flip of the coin lowers the chance of it landing on a specific side. it is always a 50% chance. but getting the same result from a 50% chance several times in a row has a separate percentage chance that needs to be calculated. flipping heads twice in a row has a 25% chance of happening. this is not a 25% chance of getting heads on a second flip, but rather a 25% chance overall, for both of the flips. this is because you are combining two 50% chance actions.
+It's Just Milk I Swear Previous flips have no influence on future flips. You could flip heads a billion times, and the next flip is still 50/50.
Jim Walker i already explained how that is true, but the fact that there is a secondary percentage that both your first and second flip will have the same result is also true. it does not change your second flip to a 25% chance, however, the combined flips do in fact equal 25%. this secondary percentage is already reliant on the fact that all coin flips will be a 50% chance, so your comment is completely irrelevant.
It's Just Milk I Swear There is no such thing as a first or secondary flip. All flips have the same result 50/50. That is the gambler's fallacy. Each flip is individual and not related to any other flip. Imposing a such patterns is a fallacy.
ua-cam.com/video/K8SkCh-n4rw/v-deo.html
Jim Walker yes, there is. if i decide i will flip a coin three times in a row, there will be a first, second, and third flip. any moron could figure that out. ALL three flips will be a 50/50 chance, however the combined actions of flipping the coin all three times requires a second calculation of percentage to determine the result. because obviously, my odds of flipping heads 3 times in row is not 50/50. it is 50% + 50% + 50%. this is not a fallacy, your personal incredulity however, is a fallacy.
The type of thinking displayed in this thread reassures me of the continued success of gambling as a thriving industry.
@MrBoo88 "I can't decide, maybe I should flip a coin, hope it explodes and kills me" - Black Books. (can't say it couldn't happen either).
I had a Reese's Peanut Butter cup once, and got a throat infection the next day. never ate them again, even though I liked it.
Same fallacy I think.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Awesome video!
Good work
Im really thankful i never had a gambling problem because how else could i have ever afforded my drug problem!
The fallacy is trying to find random pattern even in randomness
I just watched that episode. The moving wall. Spooky. :P
Coins can land on their side.
Right. But a coin might land on its side = neither head nor tail... :)
I move a penny. The penny has been moved. Cause an effect. I can prove that i caused the penny to move.
Einstein: God does not play dice with the Universe.
@vgmjbpkcdmqd You make it sound like I'm trying not to be proven wrong or stupid. I thought we were having a normal conversation here, if I'm wrong so what? I'm not trying to be right or prove you wrong at all. Just trying to get something clear. Anyway, I see what you mean and agree that it has no effect on future result. The last coin flip has nothing to do with the next, but what I'm saying is the net coin flips, have a probability of 50/50.
0:40 "just aren't there"... all the patterns we see are constructed, and are real, in our minds. What you mean is that only some of them tell us something useful about the world.
0:45 "50%". You are assuming an ideal coin, and ideal coin flipper, which you did not state. You need to factor in the chances that the coin and/or flipper may be biased, and by how much, and for what reason.
2:22 No Audis allowed
Psychopaths will not understand that. They believe themselves the most.
@jnwpse Or you're related to Erik Lehnsherr and need to band with others who can inexplicably alter the laws of probability as well.
Though it's hard to admit, in the end we don't even know that cause and effect exist. There are quite a few things like this everyone assumes; otherwise we couldn't have science.
your studio stole an audio sample in the pacman game for this video... whoops
This really true
Here from empyrean
I'd say there is a greater chance the coin would land tails.
When I was a kid I developed the skill to dictate the results of my indoor coin flips to an accuracy greater than 95%. It all boiled down to precise muscle memory and subtle tricks.
If you pay attention to the side the flipper starts on each time, a flipping habit could skew the 50/50 probability, for instance:
When the flipper starts on heads, it lands heads.
When the flipper starts on tails, it lands tails.
He naturally rotates the coin when placing it on his thumb causing a 'heads-tail-heads-tail' pattern however, the individual probability for each flip is not 50/50.
If I expand on my initial statement I'd *want* to say there is a greater chance the coin would land tails, but in all honesty I'd have to be there in person to make my prediction.
Dave yeah but this is assuming there is a complete 50-50
Nice.
Talk louder, man. I can’t hear you
Maybe turn the volume up?
What a stark description of gamblers from the editor of National Review..................
I am a victim of gambler's fallacy, i can't warp up my mind to understand something like in this example , if i toss a coin 10 times the chance that i will get only head 10 times in a row is (0.5)^10
and if you say 9 of that is head it's (0.5)^9 that's 0.19%chance of happening, it's obviously 99.81% more likely to be a tail and you are telling me it's 50%. i hate my brain i still can't convince it.
here from xqc stream LUL
@vgmjbpkcdmqd You'd be pretty vexed if you flipped a coin 100 times and got 98 heads. You would expect roughly 50 50. This is the reason Carl Sagan says its unlikely that we are alone in the universe.
Don't be so hard on yourself though. Part of that was likely instinct, which is an unguided process. Blame the fallacy on natural selection. :P
@MrNoosphere lol
Oh no, moment's of this video are so very terrible and so very horrible.
Most of us dont. thats why we have religion.
This series would be useful if it wasn't so obviously geared towards attempting to convince people of politically correct narratives such as Global Warming, Evolution, Vaccinations and such. It's presented as a way to think logically and in an unbiased fashion but subtely, and deceptively, it places these subjects in the midst of logical discussion, presenting them as fact, without actually discussing the logic and science behind them. Disappointing
let's all hope you never breed.
Tyestor you should hope that I breed as much as possible so that it is those like us that get the heads of those like you out of their asses.
Global warming, evolution and vaccinations are very well regarded amongst the science community (enough for it to be considered a consensus). UA-cam isn't really the best place for in-depth learning about these topics, instead you should pop into a university and have a chat with the lecturers & scientists. It'll be fun! *I'm an archaeologist by education btw
"Because they presented no specific evidence for these issues in their series of short videos that are not specifically about these issues, this implies that these examples are not fact and are just politically correct narratives."
Hmm. Sorry, it doesn't hold water.
Scientific consensus is truth. Conspiracy theories aren't rational thinking. They're full of fallacies and other cognitive biases.