Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion
- Thread starter WTFetus
- Start date
Georgiev talking about his glove hand.
weastern bias
worst team in the league
Are you referring to the concept of regression to the mean, or something? Regression means finding relationships between dependent and independent variables. If you mean taking large enough sample sizes so that the averages converges to the mean, then yes.
Because I don't see how anyone versed in pro or graduate level stats could think that a completely independent lottery/chance event would have any reliance on past events for its outcome. Yes, I am well versed in graduate statistics. In mathematics we would call it sample size. I've explained it to you as "history."
- Jul 25, 2007
- 2,954
- 8,326
Don't have to talk to us like kids, I know what regression is, but regression to the mean is a specific concept which I assume you're aware of. I also took and passed graduate courses in stats and use stats at work. If you're talking about sample size, I just don't understand what specific stats concept you are referring to that would make it relevant. This is an independent event. The chance that 5 coins all come up heads is 1/2^5 as you said, but the chance that the next coin in any series comes up heads is still 50%.
Even if we went with this, which I'm still not on board with, we're talking about 5 or 6 events (the lotteries with these rules). The sample size is so small as to make any "average converging to the mean" effect minimal.
Sendhelplease
Registered User
- Dec 21, 2020
- 343
- 1,280
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
Past results do not statistically affect future statistics when the events do not interact with each other. How are we still having this discussion?
I once saw red hit at a roulette table 17 straight times.
sharski
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2012
- 5,544
- 5,281
LMFAO at anyone who still doesn't think we're living in a simulation just lol
If you're flipping a coin and getting a 50/50 split on heads/tails and then get 4 tails in a row, the odds of another tail is 3.125%
End of story.
Jargon
Registered User
Each coin flip is independent, meaning the probability of getting tails on any single flip is always 50%, regardless of what happened before.
3.125% would only be true if you were calculating the probability of getting five tails in a row from the start.
However, if you've already flipped four tails in a row, that history does not affect the next flip. The probability of the next flip being tails is still 50%.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
The odds of getting five tails in a row as a collective result when judging those odds before flipping any of the coins is indeed 3.125%. The odds of getting five tails in a row when judging after you've already flipped four coins and gotten four tails is 50%. Once a result happens, it no longer affects future results.
Flip four coins and get four tails. Before you flip any coins, the odds of that result happening are 1 in 2^4. After the coins are flipped and result in four tails, the odds of that happening is 100% because IT ALREADY HAPPENED. Once the result is locked in, the odds of that result having already happened are 100%, because they already happened. They do not factor into future results.
End of story.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 2,954
- 8,326
Sorry, he already "end of story" 'd us, so the story was over and he's right. History matters. duh.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
What he fails to take into account is that every single coin flip in the history of the world is interconnected and directly related, no?
No, the odds of getting tails 5 times in a row is 3.125%, but that would be prior to flipping the first time.
The odds of getting tails a 5th time after 4 in a row is 50%
my friend, read this again --- does this make any sense? After getting 4 tails in a row, how does the coin "know" that it should adjust its weight on this flip to be 96.875% heads?
"regression to the mean" is not the same as "independent events actually have dependence"
Jargon
Registered User
You flip a coin enough and there's a non-insignificant chance that you, yourself, will grow a tail.
Patty Ice
Mighty Luca
Patty Ice
Mighty Luca
Your logic is indicative of a common mistake known as the gambler's fallacy.
The gambler's fallacy is the mistaken belief that the probability of a random event, like a coin flip or lottery draw, is influenced by previous outcomes. For example, if a coin lands on heads four times in a row, someone might believe the next flip is more likely to be tails, even though each flip has a 50/50 chance
timorous me
Gristled Veteran
- Apr 14, 2010
- 1,811
- 4,607
This is all well and good, but what if Gary Bettman has put a little bit of extra weight in the tail to make sure that it comes up tails more often? Did you ever think of that, all you smarty math people??
Gecklund
Registered User
See what everyone is missing is Macklin is the only good thing we will get for the next 100 years.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
Guy is so bad at math, some non-member lurker got mad enough to make an account to correct him.
We had Raska, but squandered his development so we have no one to blame but ourselves.
