Flipping a tail is a 1/2 chance, but flipping 6 tails in a row is a 1/64, so if after flipping 5 tails, why is it incorrect to say that your chance of flipping another tail is now lower, like you’re “bound” to get a head? I know this is the gambler’s fallacy, but why is it a fallacy? I get that each coin flip is independent, but it feels right (as fallacies often do) that in consecutive flips the previous events matter? Please, help me see it in a different way.
In: Mathematics
Here’s where I will always disagree with the “standard” answer, at least as far as a larger number of flips (say 100) goes. If I flip a coin 99 times and it lands on tails 99 times in a row, the odds against that happening are astronomical! This would lead me to conclude there is another factor at play. I would question whether the coin is weighted differently, or if there is some sort of strange magnetism or environmental condition happening, or even a strange gypsy curse on the coin, it doesn’t matter. It would be so phenomenal to have 99 flips land on tails, it is actually **more** reasonable to assume that whatever phenomenon has caused this will also cause it to land on tails again.
Latest Answers