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
Because whatever happened to the 5 coins won’t change what happens to the next one. Definition of independent is they don’t have an effect on each other. Whether you flipped 5 heads or tails or anything in between, it doesn’t matter because when you flip the next coin, you flip it in isolation. Independent. Alone. Don’t look at it as flipping 6 coins.
Latest Answers