The movie is called Jerry and Marge go large based on true story of Jerry selbees and his wife making 26 million after finding a loophole in the Michigan lottery system. This is the scene where he discovers the loophole within just a couple of minutes after talking to the cashier
You see, if you gamble 1000$, you may lose everything. But if you gamble 5000$, you may still lose everything, but while losing it you had the chance of winning big
As you increase the number of trials of a probabilistic experiment, controlling all variables that need to be controlled, the experimental probability of a certain event in these trials happening gets closer and closer to the theoretical probability. The trials need to be non biased.
we can apply the same theory to creation of earth as probability of earth is i in 700 quint but given the number of stars and number of galaxies earth was bound to happen
@@shori7005 man that's silly you know why This weak law of large numbers in a nutshell if you studied porb you will know what i mean applying this to earth creation is silly why ? because create the write earth with this small precise parameters is not one event it's ton of consequences events some of them are dependent and some are not you can't just say right earth and wrong one and also at the end you get a probability not to make sure that the right earth would come out also if you do until first success this not WLLN it's geometric process and you can't apply this law on it
"the sample has to be large enough to take the luck out of the equation." this has been an eye opener for me. gotta stay with small samples.. I can't afford to lose my luck.
For anyone wondering him and someone else buys loads of scratch cards to make money off of them the end value was how much he made from 4200 worth of scratch cards that’s why he was talking about probability
@@Panther730that’s what i wanted to hear. Finally Of course who knows Physics or a bit math, they know eternity does not exist. It means you if you want to go to the moon, which has an eternity distance (example), you will never arrive. More important is actually you can’t either say you approach the moon and it doesn’t matter if you fly 100 years or 1 hour. Non of them is closer to the moon because of the eternity distance. I have to say eternity is not so easy to even speak about.
@@jeddahrd5780 It's meth. The actor in this clip, Bryan Cranston, is known for playing a character in the TV series Breaking Bad (BrB). In the show, he portrays a chemistry teacher named Walter White, who starts producing methamphetamine (meth) with one of his former students. Everyone in the comment section is making jokes about him switching from meth to math. The comment you replied to is suggesting that it's good to see Walter switching fields (in this case, to math) instead of sticking to the meth business.
No way bro... You have the same profile picture as i have on my own channel. I made videos on it. I still have the account. But i never seen anyone with this same profile picture😮😅
Yes, cause you the more you play the chances increase of you winning ONCE. Most games are made to be around 49% win percentage, not 50%, so eventually the casino always wins!
More like the number of attempts to a single bet can land you a win. Let's say you play the lottery and it requires 5 lucky numbers out of a set of 50 numbers from 0 to 49. In that range using counting principle you can get the total amount of possible variations of 5 numbers without them repeating. Then you buy the same number of tickets to rid the event of luck in your bet.
Just let me make a quote on probability "Probability doesn't decide possibility, possibility decide probability" The thing is that there would be atleast 2 possibility, one making the event true and other making the event false, unless its a true event. So if a doctor said that, a patient needs a surgery to sustain or he dies, success rate of a surgery is 90% probability. But the thing is this The patient will only SURVIVE if the surgery is successful, * Checking possibility of successful surgery. 1) good surgeon 2)no mistakes due tools 3) person able to go through the surgery properly 4)no medical Mistake 5)no power failure. Etc etc *Checking the possibility of failure of surgery. 1) surgeons mistake. 2)tools mistake 3) person unable to make it through the surgery 4) medicinal mistake 5) power failure. Etc etc So if the person survives, the doctor will tell,"yeah we told you right" But if the surgery fails, the doctor will say" we didn't promise anything " So the main 2 possibility are Death' or survival *The possibility of those possibilities are in same ratio, but the difference is The probability of one of the possibility's possibility is higher than the other. The reason is Hospital has a good power supply system, experienced doctor etc etc But any thing can go wrong anytime for no knwon reasons. Thus i conclude by saying that, there is always a "What if" for that event to occure/not occure P(possibility of successful surgery)>P(possibility of failure of surgery) Sample space (survival from surgery) ={death, survival} P(survival)=1/2, either he dies or survives Idk if i am right, please tell me if I don't make no sense with proof.
Honestly. I don't know if you're right or wrong, BUT i can know that you spent ALOT of time on that comment. And in my opinion. You are hella underrated. You need more recognition bro. ❤ ❤️🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸❤️
This not only looks incorrect but it’s written in the most convoluted way possible. Regardless of whatever the hell that at the end is supposed to be, you can’t say that the probability of an outcome is 50/50 just because it’s occurrence is binary (happens or doesn’t), because it happening or not happening is contingent on other occurrences that themselves have distinct probabilities. You wouldn’t say that the chance of a ball not falling down after you throw it upwards is 50/50 even though it is possible for it to happen in a hypothetical place where there’s no gravitational forces to change the trajectory of the ball. In earth, almost a 100% of the time it’s gonna fall
@@joaosantos-uj9uwYeah, I could not understand anything and thought it was true so tried to understand it, but the more I read it again I realised how dumb and obvious some parts of it are.
@joaosantos-uj9uw I specifically said that my theory won't work for true event, if a ball is thrown up it will fall down, because it's a true event, my theory is for something that can or cannot happen. The 50/50 is the probability of the probability
I love that Cranston is such a good actor that even after seeing his viral moments from Breaking Bad, his most impactful performance to me has him playing an innocent old man who has an idea to gain the system, but then it actually works. Honestly you see it a ton with famous actors where their best work usually doesn’t come from their most famous roles (ex: like the majority of the MCU’s big name stars).
Here’s the thing tho, even if that sample size is large, you can flip 1000 coins 1000 times, and everytime someone gets tails eliminate them from the equation, eventually it’ll boil down to 1 out of 1000 people who flipped the coin and landed on heads 1000 times. Luck is still a factor and it always will be. Very important lesson.
Very true luck is another factor but remember that whenever your sample size gets corrected your trying to remove chances of luck. More like the number of attempts to a single bet can land you a win. Let's say you play the lottery and it requires 5 lucky numbers out of a set of 50 numbers from 0 to 49. In that range using counting principle you can get the total amount of possible variations of 5 numbers without them repeating. Then you buy the same number of tickets to rid the event of luck in your bet.
No, that is not correct. Everybody will be eliminated with EXTREMELY high probability. The probability of getting 1000 heads out of 1000 coin flips is (1/2)^1000. That is not a chance of 1 in 1000, its a chance of about 1 in 1000….000 with over 300 zeros! That number is so immensly unfathomely large that if every atom in the universe had its own universe, where every atom in every of those universes had its own universe, and every atom of those universes and so on (3 or 4 levels of universes deep) and you count every atom in every layer of universes. You do not have enough people to succeed your experiment. Not even billions and billions and billions and billions of universes would give you enough atoms to get anywhere close. It’s an inconceivably improbable event. I know it might be counterintuitive, but it is so. I’ve got a PhD in Statistics, so this is my subject and I can elaborate more if need be.
The point isn’t that you’re ever able to eliminate luck entirely. It’s that, the larger you make your sample size, the more you reduce the impact of luck on your results. If you can determine that a particular event has a greater probability of winning, then the more you do it the better your chances of averaging out to be a winner in the end. If a particular event has a greater probability of losing, the more you do it the better your chances of losing in the end. Each trial remains an independent test of luck, and anomalies even with a large sample size are still possible. But the point isn’t to eliminate luck, it’s to reduce the chance that luck will be the deciding factor by as much as possible.
@@ooo8188except it’s not so common becuz most peep who went through school literally declared that they hate math. Go out the house and ask 10 random strangers. Chance are, they cant do primary school math even. Probability, oh boy i wish more people know it. People literally try to use a very rare luck to become successful story to inspire me, no, it put me down even more after knowing how low probability it is to replicate. Anyway, it is just not common at all. Most people literally dont even know what a radical is after they graduate, even if they learned, they forget
This is why all gambling companies have statisticians and mathematicians along with neuroscientists who work for them to always make profit and make it as addicting as possible :]
No it just helps the chances be on his side there is a set amount of money that can be won on each batch of scratch cards but by buying alot you can make it that there is a 90% chance of making profit because you wil probably have most of the jackpots but if you are really unlucky you will be the 10% and loos most of the money (the percentages or just examples)
fun fact: mathematically if you doubled your bet every coin flip you would always profir given sufficient funds. 2*(1/2)+4*(1/4)+8*(1/8)... which approaches infinity
@@abebuckingham8198 also sufficient funds is the same thing as saying for sufficiently large values of n for example 1/2^n for sufficiently large values of n is negligable
This is actually a theory in statistics, called the central limit theorem, which states that all sample statistics (mean or average estimation or like for this example the percentage of time you got heads) will follow a normal distribution when you increment the sample size, that distribution will be centered around the true probability (50% heads) with tails both ways representing the less likely outcomes. This theory is applied in bootstrapping as an alternative to traditional hypothesis testing in way too many feilds.
Breaking Bad ❌
Breaking Even ✅
Dont forget to BE before it Hits TP 🗣🔥
@@grshift youre gon get liquidated
I'm screaming 😂😭☠️
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hahaha perfect joke
Walter white if he studied economics insted of chemistry 😂.
True
This is maths you dud 😂
@@onlyonemaverick jesse it's just basic math 😂
@@onlyonemaverickeconomics deals heavily in math such as probability and statistics you dud
@@onlyonemaverickactually statistics
He literally explained why you shouldn't gamble. On average, when you gamble you lose money. The more you gamble, the more you'll lose.
Isn't 60% winning odds?
@@NotAProducer888yes but he said that the more you gamble the worse your odds are
@@spookydoughyi never heard him say the winning chance was 60 percent but if that was the case then your the idiot.
@@spookydoughySo if I gamble a really big amount only a few times I have a better change of winning?😮😮😮
@@Lord_Reeves idk im not the guy in the video, i only relayed whatever he said
And thats how he started giving out 99.2% purity
91% to be exact
@@retxzcd2486 No 99.1%
actully that was jessy
@@retxzcd2486go do your homework
@@flitsplik5750Jesse's was 96%. WW' was 99.1%. smh
Meth ❌
Math ✅
😂😂😂
Bruh😂😂😂
underrated comment xD
😂😂
Lololo@@bless01
I FINALLY GET TO BE THE MOVIE PERSON: “Jerry and Marge go large”
Thank you man, you'r not the hero we wanted but the hero we needed
@@pedrincks7404 fr i def needed that
Was looking and you delivered king
I thought this was called "Breaking Bank"
Goated movie
Walter Wallet.
_”I’m the one who charges interest”_
This is Friends related
🤣
😂
wallet weight
No
The movie is called Jerry and Marge go large based on true story of Jerry selbees and his wife making 26 million after finding a loophole in the Michigan lottery system. This is the scene where he discovers the loophole within just a couple of minutes after talking to the cashier
I watched this movie at my cousin's house
what was the loop hole
nice pfp
Thanks :)
Russian Sleep Experiment
"If you try more you have higher chance of wining " avreg gambler mentality
Saw the clip
Watched the movie
Came back to the short
It’s 4am 😂
Yoooo 😭 was thinking of doing the exact same.. i need to sleep 😂😂
Name of film.
Its nice to know there are others I can relate to out there somewhere.
Brooo oooo what movie name
@@tonyterracotta2165 Jerry and marge go largue
Alternative universe where walter actually has a gambling addiction
A gambling addiction actually for money cause walt gambled his life 💀
a real gambling addiction this time 😂
A gambling addict can't get this simple law through his thick skull, it saved my financial life
This is not gambling. No luck involved in what he did in the movie.
Underrated comment lmao
That is inspirational words “99% of gamblers quit before they hit big”
Breaking bad❌
Breaking good✅
Edit:15k likes no wayy😭🗿
W replies😂
Breaking Bank
Breaking Big
Fixing Good
Break dance
Breaking boner
Bros got that “99% of gamblers quit before they win big” ahh mindset
Very aaah comment
@@Robin_m_25😂
Bros got 99.6% pure ahh mindset
you understood what he said but opposite, eventually the house wins idiot.
Instagram ahh comment
Her "are you sure?" makes you think that he's withdrawing 42 millions, not 4200 😂
Word for Word
Walter white ❌
Walter bright ✅
Walter right ✅️
Walter Black
😂
subtle racist refusing to capitalize White.
I... am Walter the White
We don't deposit ❌
We cook 💀
Jesse we need to cook 😂
@@solbefvgb I have nothing
JJJESSI
Brainrot
Nice one😂
Proof that the more attempts you put in to your dream the less the risk percentage goes (never quit)
what???
@@VazikliDuokoda hes talking about gambling your savings and assets
every single role this man plays is a goddamn genius
edit: ok maybe not EVERY role but i still stand by my statement respectfully 👍
I don't know about genius, but he's never had a bad one I know of.
Maybe that one Godzilla movie?
He voted for Kamala
The dad from Malcom in the middle:
@@Ken-vn7mxwho cares. They both suck anyways 😂
Hiding cash in barrels ❌
Building wealth in portfolios ✅
WE AIN'T GONNA STOP GAMBLING WITH THIS ONE 🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
I like how Brian C always plays a smart dude branching out of his field and making money
Thank you I will never quit gambling
This obviously isnt original but i love the saying.
99% of gamblers quit before winning big.
😂
You see, if you gamble 1000$, you may lose everything. But if you gamble 5000$, you may still lose everything, but while losing it you had the chance of winning big
this isn't gambling, tho. They found a loophole
Gamblers have more chances of winning at start. The more you gamble the lesser chance you have as house or broker always have more than 50%.
As you increase the number of trials of a probabilistic experiment, controlling all variables that need to be controlled, the experimental probability of a certain event in these trials happening gets closer and closer to the theoretical probability. The trials need to be non biased.
we can apply the same theory to creation of earth as probability of earth is i in 700 quint but given the number of stars and number of galaxies earth was bound to happen
What was the point of this comment?
Same applies to any independent set of trials. Eventually, with a large sample size, the data converges to a normal distribution.
im quite new to statistics, is this similar to the monte carlo simulation?
@@shori7005 man that's silly
you know why
This weak law of large numbers in a nutshell if you studied porb you will know what i mean
applying this to earth creation is silly
why ?
because create the write earth with this small precise parameters is not one event it's ton of consequences events some of them are dependent and some are not you can't just say right earth and wrong one and also at the end you get a probability not to make sure that the right earth would come out also if you do until first success this not WLLN it's geometric process and you can't apply this law on it
The man's a menace no matter which field he's in😂
He is the danger after all
"the sample has to be large enough to take the luck out of the equation."
this has been an eye opener for me. gotta stay with small samples.. I can't afford to lose my luck.
There was never any luck
For anyone wondering him and someone else buys loads of scratch cards to make money off of them the end value was how much he made from 4200 worth of scratch cards that’s why he was talking about probability
Whats the movie name
@@nigelmadanhire1637Jerry and Marge Go Large
@@nigelmadanhire1637 Jerry and Marge go large
Thank you 😂
Jerry and Marge go large. Based on real lottery in Michigan I think
He is absolutely right ! The guy tells you exactly what the schools failed to make you realise...
If you went to college you would learn that freshman year Stats
Or just you needed to study more carefully
@@Bublik46I think you are one of the first bencher😂
@@ajiteshpaul8931 and?
Well technically hes not because there's a slight edge for one of the sides of a coin look into it🤓🤓
if you flip a coin for eternity you will win half the time
Well it depends of which type of coin you flip. Each side has different mass.
Heads have a slightly higher chance due to it being heavier.
weight of the coin effects it a lot
no you wouldnt? if the coin is flipping for eternity, it will never land on either side.
@@Panther730that’s what i wanted to hear. Finally
Of course who knows Physics or a bit math, they know eternity does not exist. It means you if you want to go to the moon, which has an eternity distance (example), you will never arrive. More important is actually you can’t either say you approach the moon and it doesn’t matter if you fly 100 years or 1 hour. Non of them is closer to the moon because of the eternity distance. I have to say eternity is not so easy to even speak about.
I watched this like 100 times cuz I fell asleep while watching UA-cam lol
😂😂😂
same,i thought i am the only one like this😂
Same
Literally edging the sleep for 3rd hour
I was gonna quit but this made me rethink it I will go back to Vegas!
$4200❎
$80M✅
Movie name???
@@mdrakqibalam8839 Jerry & Marge Go Large
@@mdrakqibalam8839 Breaking bad.
@@mdrakqibalam8839Jerry and Marge go large
move name plaese
Methamphetamine ❌
Mathematics ✅
Paul Erdős:
Why not both? :D
This short just inspired me to gamble all of my money away as much times as possible so I can win big. Thanks shorts
So you become homeless, living in the street
Anyone wondering the name of the movie is : Jerry & Marge Go Large.
I love you bro
@John_Wick_cachorro love you back bro 🙏🏻💜
Tq🎉
Thanks man
Thanks
Good to see my boy Walter find success in other fields that aren’t the meth business😄👍
it's math not meth
@@jeddahrd5780 It's meth. The actor in this clip, Bryan Cranston, is known for playing a character in the TV series Breaking Bad (BrB). In the show, he portrays a chemistry teacher named Walter White, who starts producing methamphetamine (meth) with one of his former students.
Everyone in the comment section is making jokes about him switching from meth to math. The comment you replied to is suggesting that it's good to see Walter switching fields (in this case, to math) instead of sticking to the meth business.
This is the best ad for scratcher tickets I’ve seen yet.
It’s not, it’s a movie called Harry and Marge go large
movie title: Jerry and Marge Go Large
No way bro... You have the same profile picture as i have on my own channel. I made videos on it. I still have the account. But i never seen anyone with this same profile picture😮😅
So the more you gamble the more your chances are of winning
IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW
Yes
Yes, cause you the more you play the chances increase of you winning ONCE. Most games are made to be around 49% win percentage, not 50%, so eventually the casino always wins!
More like the number of attempts to a single bet can land you a win. Let's say you play the lottery and it requires 5 lucky numbers out of a set of 50 numbers from 0 to 49. In that range using counting principle you can get the total amount of possible variations of 5 numbers without them repeating. Then you buy the same number of tickets to rid the event of luck in your bet.
Saw the clip watched the movie
What a story and after knowing its a truw story that makes it more beautiful
LETS GET THIS GUY TO 1 MILL!!! 🗣️🔥🔥🔥
Yes come on sub now😊
The he would be diverseify the money in 100 parts and flip it with 10000 every bet with 1:3 rr. Now u ca tell to flip it into 100 mill times😢
this guy is a menace no matter the subject he studies
Just let me make a quote on probability
"Probability doesn't decide possibility, possibility decide probability"
The thing is that there would be atleast 2 possibility, one making the event true and other making the event false, unless its a true event.
So if a doctor said that, a patient needs a surgery to sustain or he dies, success rate of a surgery is 90% probability.
But the thing is this
The patient will only SURVIVE if the surgery is successful,
* Checking possibility of successful surgery.
1) good surgeon
2)no mistakes due tools
3) person able to go through the surgery properly
4)no medical Mistake
5)no power failure. Etc etc
*Checking the possibility of failure of surgery.
1) surgeons mistake.
2)tools mistake
3) person unable to make it through the surgery
4) medicinal mistake
5) power failure. Etc etc
So if the person survives, the doctor will tell,"yeah we told you right"
But if the surgery fails, the doctor will say" we didn't promise anything "
So the main 2 possibility are Death' or survival
*The possibility of those possibilities are in same ratio, but the difference is
The probability of one of the possibility's possibility is higher than the other.
The reason is Hospital has a good power supply system, experienced doctor etc etc
But any thing can go wrong anytime for no knwon reasons.
Thus i conclude by saying that, there is always a "What if" for that event to occure/not occure
P(possibility of successful surgery)>P(possibility of failure of surgery)
Sample space (survival from surgery) ={death, survival}
P(survival)=1/2, either he dies or survives
Idk if i am right, please tell me if I don't make no sense with proof.
Honestly. I don't know if you're right or wrong, BUT i can know that you spent ALOT of time on that comment.
And in my opinion. You are hella underrated. You need more recognition bro. ❤
❤️🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸❤️
This not only looks incorrect but it’s written in the most convoluted way possible. Regardless of whatever the hell that at the end is supposed to be, you can’t say that the probability of an outcome is 50/50 just because it’s occurrence is binary (happens or doesn’t), because it happening or not happening is contingent on other occurrences that themselves have distinct probabilities. You wouldn’t say that the chance of a ball not falling down after you throw it upwards is 50/50 even though it is possible for it to happen in a hypothetical place where there’s no gravitational forces to change the trajectory of the ball. In earth, almost a 100% of the time it’s gonna fall
@@joaosantos-uj9uwYeah, I could not understand anything and thought it was true so tried to understand it, but the more I read it again I realised how dumb and obvious some parts of it are.
@@joaosantos-uj9uwyou’re exactly right, although I think the original commenter was just using surgery as an example that is easily understandable
@joaosantos-uj9uw I specifically said that my theory won't work for true event, if a ball is thrown up it will fall down, because it's a true event, my theory is for something that can or cannot happen.
The 50/50 is the probability of the probability
❌ Breaking Bad
✅ Fixing Good
Watched this movie a few weeks ago... A true life story...loved it
Hey whats the movie can u tell
@nahboi1917 Jerry and Marge go large
Where I can watch
I love that Cranston is such a good actor that even after seeing his viral moments from Breaking Bad, his most impactful performance to me has him playing an innocent old man who has an idea to gain the system, but then it actually works.
Honestly you see it a ton with famous actors where their best work usually doesn’t come from their most famous roles (ex: like the majority of the MCU’s big name stars).
Walter white when he runs out of customers
Finally a reason to fuel my gambling addiction
Bro stop 🙏
@@ish_an9 don't stop me now
Here’s the thing tho, even if that sample size is large, you can flip 1000 coins 1000 times, and everytime someone gets tails eliminate them from the equation, eventually it’ll boil down to 1 out of 1000 people who flipped the coin and landed on heads 1000 times. Luck is still a factor and it always will be. Very important lesson.
Very true luck is another factor but remember that whenever your sample size gets corrected your trying to remove chances of luck. More like the number of attempts to a single bet can land you a win. Let's say you play the lottery and it requires 5 lucky numbers out of a set of 50 numbers from 0 to 49. In that range using counting principle you can get the total amount of possible variations of 5 numbers without them repeating. Then you buy the same number of tickets to rid the event of luck in your bet.
No, that is not correct.
Everybody will be eliminated with EXTREMELY high probability.
The probability of getting 1000 heads out of 1000 coin flips is (1/2)^1000. That is not a chance of 1 in 1000, its a chance of about 1 in 1000….000 with over 300 zeros!
That number is so immensly unfathomely large that if every atom in the universe had its own universe, where every atom in every of those universes had its own universe, and every atom of those universes and so on (3 or 4 levels of universes deep) and you count every atom in every layer of universes. You do not have enough people to succeed your experiment. Not even billions and billions and billions and billions of universes would give you enough atoms to get anywhere close. It’s an inconceivably improbable event.
I know it might be counterintuitive, but it is so. I’ve got a PhD in Statistics, so this is my subject and I can elaborate more if need be.
The point isn’t that you’re ever able to eliminate luck entirely. It’s that, the larger you make your sample size, the more you reduce the impact of luck on your results. If you can determine that a particular event has a greater probability of winning, then the more you do it the better your chances of averaging out to be a winner in the end. If a particular event has a greater probability of losing, the more you do it the better your chances of losing in the end. Each trial remains an independent test of luck, and anomalies even with a large sample size are still possible. But the point isn’t to eliminate luck, it’s to reduce the chance that luck will be the deciding factor by as much as possible.
"are you sure ?"
"YOU ARE GODDAMN RIGHT"
This is art!
Well, actually, it's just simple math
I’m so glad i opened these comments and the first thing i saw wasn’t the words; Lets Go Gambling!
It's funny how we all know him as "Walter white" while his other roles are commendable as well.
"The more you try, the more luck you have" what my dad said after spending 4 hours in the casino and loosing everything
I've explained this to people so many times when they struggle to understand why 50% doesn't feel like 50%.
what is the title of this video supposed to mean. because I'm pretty sure this is all common sense as long as you've done primary school maths before.
@@ooo8188except it’s not so common becuz most peep who went through school literally declared that they hate math. Go out the house and ask 10 random strangers. Chance are, they cant do primary school math even. Probability, oh boy i wish more people know it.
People literally try to use a very rare luck to become successful story to inspire me, no, it put me down even more after knowing how low probability it is to replicate.
Anyway, it is just not common at all. Most people literally dont even know what a radical is after they graduate, even if they learned, they forget
This dude is always playing the smart people
Madness is wanting to do the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
this man's character is always intellectually badass.
like the dad of malcolm
What movie is that?
Jessie, we need to print more tickets
This aint breaking bad, this is fixing evil
Heisenberg always up to his get-rich-quick schemes.
HE CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT!!!
Remember kids 99% of gamblers quit before hitting the jackpot -the more you try the more you success
Sounds like a fact the casinos made up
This is why all gambling companies have statisticians and mathematicians along with neuroscientists who work for them to always make profit and make it as addicting as possible :]
Breaking bad❌️
Fixing good✅️
Breaking bad? Nah we got breaking the bank at home
this guy a legend of all study😂
Dudes: *According to my calculations I still get 60% head.*
One of the greatest actors ever since Malcom in the middle😂👏🏾👏🏾🙏🏿
Jesse Pinkman ❌
Investment advisor ✅
He was really cooking on this one
He is perfect actor for those i broke the system kind roles
I know he never died, he changed his identity and started living with Jesse.
Skyler where did you get all this money?
Skyler: "Walt is a compulsive gambler" 😊
The Big Number law is a beautiful thing
Breaking Bad ❌️
Breaking Good ❎️
Bro found the money glitch💀
No it just helps the chances be on his side there is a set amount of money that can be won on each batch of scratch cards but by buying alot you can make it that there is a 90% chance of making profit because you wil probably have most of the jackpots but if you are really unlucky you will be the 10% and loos most of the money (the percentages or just examples)
crazy i just learned this in my statistics class a month ago
Nah no matter how many times I try, I ain't never getting a head 😞
😂 underrated
Breaking Bad ❌
Mending Good ✅
This is exactly what most people do not understand regarding stochastics and statistics...
fun fact:
mathematically if you doubled your bet every coin flip you would always profir given sufficient funds.
2*(1/2)+4*(1/4)+8*(1/8)... which approaches infinity
wrong
It's not enough to have sufficient funds, you need infinite funds. As long as the funds are finite the expected value also remains finite.
@@abebuckingham8198 i said it approaches infinity (just like how the frequency approaches the probability)
never that the expected value is infinite
@@abebuckingham8198 also sufficient funds is the same thing as saying for sufficiently large values of n
for example
1/2^n for sufficiently large values of n is negligable
Time traveler: moves a pebble.
The timeline:
This helps my gambling addiction
Breaking Bad ❌
Breaking Bank ✅
Walter White died, but this man never stopped cooking❤
So the more I gamble, the highee the chance I win.
You're Damn right!
She looks at him like
- AHHHH ...WIRE
breaking bad ❌
breaking good ✅
This is actually a theory in statistics, called the central limit theorem, which states that all sample statistics (mean or average estimation or like for this example the percentage of time you got heads) will follow a normal distribution when you increment the sample size, that distribution will be centered around the true probability (50% heads) with tails both ways representing the less likely outcomes.
This theory is applied in bootstrapping as an alternative to traditional hypothesis testing in way too many feilds.
its just a limit
Man it’s weird seeing Cranston get this old
20 years gone past unbelievable
If you never shoot you always miss
Bro is same actor as walter white
no it's not
Yes he is@@iskiiwizz536
Nah that’s same actor as Gus fring
@@iskiiwizz536what do you mean?
@@solbefvgb It's not
casino slot machines be like after ♾️ times trying: Better luck next time 💀
Thats why research level of confidence raises when sample size is large from the population because it take luck out of the result.
I can't believe this is how Hal became the Bay Harbour mathematician
Cashier - So, are you depositing money ?
Walter - No, I am cooking meth.
Coin flip example has been disproven scientifically. Keep up.
Walter cooking meth❌
Walter cooking math✅
The more you try the luckier❌
The more you try the more realistic results you get✅