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’ve flipped a coin. It was tails. That was a 50/50 chance.
You’ve flipped a coin. It was tails. That was a 50/50 chance.
You’ve flipped a coin. It was tails. That was a 50/50 chance.
You’ve flipped a coin. It was tails. That was a 50/50 chance.
You’ve flipped a coin. It was tails. That was a 50/50 chance.
You’re flipping a coin. It might be tails. That’d bea 50/50 chance.
Latest Answers