The Law of Averages - Page 2

On May 21 2011 07:59 Lemonwalrus wrote:
Remake the blog, the more you try, the more likely you are to get it right sooner or later.

I learned that from a blog once.

On May 21 2011 10:24 EsX_Raptor wrote:
Do you understand that there is a probability that you will never roll a 6 after an infinite amount of casts?

On May 21 2011 10:24 EsX_Raptor wrote:
Do you understand that there is a probability that you will never roll a 6 after an infinite amount of casts?

On May 21 2011 11:21 Sleight wrote:
Guys, you really don't understand probability theory.

Two dice, any chance of getting one single 6 is the same as rolling one die twice to get a six.

6 * 6 = 36 Outcomes
Winning outcomes = [6 X] and [X 6] with [6 6] only counting once, obviously, so 11 wins.
11 / 36 = .306

You guys need to do better math. Rolling more dice DOES increase the probability of a success. Taking more chances increases the likelihood of a success as a strategy.

EDIT for clarification: No single roll EVER has a higher likelihood than 1/6, but you can only examine probability on the large scale. We are looking at combinations of chances, which mean that if you roll 1000 dice, your likelihood of getting a 6 is basically 1, but that says nothing of whether its the first roll or the last roll. Probability theory ONLY applies to SETS.

On May 21 2011 12:25 Sleight wrote:
I pointed out exactly how the Gambler's fallacy doesn't account for reality, friend. I also said probability only works on SETS as my last statement. Two instances is a set, even if its largely useless. Two hundred instances and we begin to find relevant information to inform a decision, typically.

Notice how I explicitly say your single instance probably NEVER CHANGES?

Did you read my post before saying the same thing in a different way and trying to sound contradictory? I said nothing about the OP's correctness in regards to his Gambler's Fallacy. I spoke only to the event that increased trials increases chance of success. He is right, statistically you will eventually hit it home, but he is wrong in that it is some magical self-correction. It's just probability, nothing more, nothing less.

Like I said and you said and other informed people have said.

On May 21 2011 12:15 MoonBear wrote:

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your first example of rolling two dice concurrently. But if you are saying that the chance getting a 6 when rolling two dice at the same time is different from the probability of obtaining a 6 when rolling a single die is different then the result is a given. In that instance you are comparing a joint probability distribution to a single variable probability distribution so the results will be skewed as a result.

You are misunderstanding the point that Infinity was making. There is nothing wrong with observing probability on a small scale. Statisticians do this all the time.

The "Law of Large Numbers" (I do detest the name but no matter) is a statement that a very large number of observations will tend to reflect the underlying probability of the random variable in question. On this instance, I believe we are all in agreement. If you flip a fair coin an infinite number of times, your observations will tend to a 50:50 split.

However, you are confusing this with the applications and caveats that come with independence and random sampling. The OP is not making a statement about deducing conclusion from an extremely large sample space. Instead, it is a case of repeated trials and commenting on the results of each observation. In this case, it is a conditional probability function.

For example, one example was continuing to hit on women at a party until you achieve success. It would be incorrect to state that we are making observations on a large scale. Instead, you are taking repeated samples from a state space and then commenting on each observation one at a time.

The fallacy in his article was "Given that I have made advances on a woman and failed, I expect to have a success because the law of averages should even things out eventually." This is incorrect because independence between events means that the conditional probability of success given failure is still the same as the probability of success in a single event.

I would recommend you read the link that Infinity posted and not make claims such as "You don't understand probability theory".

The law of averages is actually not a law at all. It's a truism that has no truth stating that when you've flipped a coin and gotten heads three times in a row, well then tails is more likely to turn up on your next flip. I just think that "The Law of Large Numbers" is a horrible title.

On May 21 2011 14:44 infinity21 wrote:
You guys are literally arguing over the difference between 'chances of success' and 'chances of a success' lol

On May 21 2011 13:30 obesechicken13 wrote:


Hmmm... ok... ok


Hey I never said that!
+ Show Spoiler +

And I quote


My intention wasn't to say that I would have a greater chance of success on my next attempt, I was saying that if I got turned down 20 times, and then approached 50 more women, I would have a higher chance of success with at least one of those 50 women than if I felt discouraged and only approached two women. I'm trying to say don't give up. I understand "independece between events" or whatever