Originally Posted by Frazod:
He single-handedly turned that Green Bay/Detroit game with his bullshit calls. Almost as bad as the way Triplette ****ed us in that Titans playoff loss.
Ugh. That Titans game. I will never get over that. One of the worst calls in history. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic:
To use a previous example given as to why I am wrong, if you flip that fair coin 100 times, and the first 5 times it lands on heads, there is no reason to believe that landing on heads the next 95 times isn't possible. Because, previous outcomes do not affect future outcomes, correct?
What I am saying is that every time that coin lands on heads, the next flip becomes more likely to land on tails, regardless of the fact that previous outcomes do not influence future outcomes. Again, what you are saying is true, but in actual practice we all know that coin is going to land on tails at some point during those next 95 flips.
No single flip affects the probability of another flip, no matter how cumulative.
What you are conflating is that as you accumulate flips into a single body of results, the probability of a singular outcome [all heads or all tails] becomes more and more remote.
1 flip - 1 of 2 [2^1] things happens H/T
2 flip - 1 of 4 [2^2] things HH/HT/TH/TT
3 flip - 1 of 8 [2^3] things HHH/HHT/HTH/THH/TTH/HTT/THT/TTT
etc. [2^x]
You are conflating episodic probability to aggregate probability.
EDIT - also this
Originally Posted by SupDock:
It is absolutely possible, but improbable for any specific series of 100 flips.
The probability of flipping a fair coin and getting 100 Heads in a row is 1 in 2^100. That's 1 in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376.
If you flipped heads 99 times in a row, the odd of the next being heads is still 50 percent.
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
No single flip affects the probability of another flip, no matter how cumulative.
What you are conflating is that as you accumulate flips into a single body of results, the probability of a singular outcome [all heads or all tails] becomes more and more remote.
1 flip - 1 of 2 [2^1] things happens H/T
2 flip - 1 of 4 [2^2] things HH/HT/TH/TT
3 flip - 1 of 8 [2^3] things HHH/HHT/HTH/THH/TTH/HTT/THT/TTT
etc. [2^x]
You are conflating episodic probability to aggregate probability.
Originally Posted by SupDock:
It is absolutely possible, but improbable for any specific series of 100 flips.
The probability of flipping a fair coin and getting 100 Heads in a row is 1 in 2^100. That's 1 in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376.
If you flipped heads 99 times in a row, the odd of the next being heads is still 50 percent.
Do all objects fall at the same rate of speed? Yes, IN A VACUUM or on the surface of the moon. Stating that all objects fall at the same rate of speed is absolutely true.
That is just as true as what you are saying. I have, several times, stated that what you say is true. In theory.
In practice, regardless of how you argue against it, we just "know" that a coin will not land on one side 100 time in a row.
Outside of a vacuum, or the surface of the moon, a bowling ball falls faster than a feather, in practice, because of existence of wind resistance. The bowling ball is more aerodynamic than the feather, with less surface area affected by wind resistance.
Your statement is absolutely true, in a theoretical vacuum. Just because Mahomes has never thrown an interception in September, or lost in September, or lost to Lamar Jackson, plays no part in whether he does any of those in the future.
But yet, you believe that those things will eventually happen, even if you can't admit why.
Originally Posted by SupDock:
Ugh. That Titans game. I will never get over that. One of the worst calls in history.
Another byproduct of the unholy union of the NFL and professional gambling. It's so easy to change the outcome of a game with a couple of bogus calls/non calls. And none of these cocksuckers have any personal accountability.
BTW, Blakeman's day job is being a fucking lawyer. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic:
Do all objects fall at the same rate of speed? Yes, IN A VACUUM or on the surface of the moon. Stating that all objects fall at the same rate of speed is absolutely true.
That is just as true as what you are saying. I have, several times, stated that what you say is true. In theory.
In practice, regardless of how you argue against it, we just "know" that a coin will not land on one side 100 time in a row.
Outside of a vacuum, or the surface of the moon, a bowling ball falls faster than a feather, in practice, because of existence of wind resistance. The bowling ball is more aerodynamic than the feather, with less surface area affected by wind resistance.
Your statement is absolutely true, in a theoretical vacuum. Just because Mahomes has never thrown an interception in September, or lost in September, or lost to Lamar Jackson, plays no part in whether he does any of those in the future.
But yet, you believe that those things will eventually happen, even if you can't admit why.
Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk
I understand what you are trying to say, and you are wrong. I don’t really know how else to respond.
You said that a coin becomes more likely to land tails the more times it has landed heads in a row. That’s a preposterous assertion, whether you are speaking about “theory” or “reality” [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
No single flip affects the probability of another flip, no matter how cumulative.
What you are conflating is that as you accumulate flips into a single body of results, the probability of a singular outcome [all heads or all tails] becomes more and more remote.
1 flip - 1 of 2 [2^1] things happens H/T
2 flip - 1 of 4 [2^2] things HH/HT/TH/TT
3 flip - 1 of 8 [2^3] things HHH/HHT/HTH/THH/TTH/HTT/THT/TTT
etc. [2^x]
You are conflating episodic probability to aggregate probability.
EDIT - also this
I don't even know how to explain that you literally just made my point, regardless of episodic probability to aggregate probability.
