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
You know it. The events are independent and it only feels dependent because of gambler’s fallacy.
Nothing about the coin flip will change the outcome of the other coin flips. There’s no magical force that will try to have a coin keep a running total of 50/50. That’s the gambler’s fallacy. You don’t flip two coins and have to have 1 head and 1 tail.
Russian roulette is a dependent event. You will die if you play it solo. If you flip coins, you can get heads every time. It’ll be statistically unlikely but possible.
Maybe ask why do you think the coin flips are dependent on each other because there is no reason besides you feeling it does and to quote a popular right wing phrase, “facts don’t care about your feelings.”
People are just bad at numbers and stats.
Latest Answers