Submitted by Reason-Local t3_11de5ag in explainlikeimfive
RedFiveIron t1_ja9b547 wrote
Reply to comment by johrnjohrn in ELI5: why does/doesn’t probability increase when done multiple times? by Reason-Local
If the die is fair the odds don't change. The historical information is irrelevant as the die has no memory.
A long string of rolling the same number may indicate the die is not fair, in a non-hypothetical situation.
johrnjohrn t1_ja9cn4k wrote
Would you personally brush off the one quintillion consecutive throws if the die was determined to be fair by a team of scientists? Then another quintillion? And if someone now gave you the chance to bet on the next outcome, which would you choose? I argue that if you are rational you would bet that the streak continues. But mathematically you shouldn't change your bet, and you should ignore the two quintillion consecutive throws up until this point, right? Do you see the problem here?
RedFiveIron t1_ja9dqez wrote
If the die is fair then it's fair, that's all she wrote. Rationally you should always follow the math. Constructing an absurdly unlikely scenario doesn't invalidate the math.
johrnjohrn t1_ja9eo35 wrote
What does it being absurdly unlikely have to do with anything? And at what point do you consider it "absurdly unlikely"? 100 throws? 1000 throws? 1 million throws?
By even pointing out the absurdity seems to indicate that you have an inherent understanding that it does at some point begin to matter.
RedFiveIron t1_ja9g8f3 wrote
You're constructing an extremely unlikely scenario to rationalize thinking a die has memory. It does not.
The previous results don't affect future outcomes for a fair die, no matter what those previous results are or how unlikely that outcome was.
Let me toss that back at you: How many unlikely outcomes have to occur before it "begins to matter"? Is one enough to start ignoring the math? Ten? A thousand?
johrnjohrn t1_ja9qjlw wrote
I never offered that the die has memory. I only offered a hypothetical in which a fair die rolled one quintillion times on the same number by what a mathematician would say is pure chance. And your suggestion that I believe that implies that you have some inherent belief that the math "breaks down" at some undefined, seemingly ridiculous point. Regardless of the number of rolls I pick, you will say it doesn't matter and I say at some point it does. That is the rub. You have absolute confidence that any limitless number I can think of wouldn't sway you into reconsidering which number would be most "rational" to pick next if this all occurred in front of your eyes.
I think what I'm really saying is that normally we'd expect, on average, a die that may roll the same number that can be explained with mathematical probabilities. And those probabilistic averages play out the same, all day every day in casinos everywhere, because we observe them, and the laws of physics appear fixed. Any gambler who thinks those laws of physics and probabilities will change based on their crude observations of a small number of rolls is, in fact, a fool.
Now, you suddenly have an outlier that outlies averages so far that the whole casino industry topples because of it. Although my scenario is absurdly unlikely, your math shows that it is equally possible, albeit unequally probable. Is the gambler who watches the seemingly supernatural phenomenon unfold in real time all that foolish if they were to bet on the next outcome to be the same as the prior quintillion?
I suppose this might be a question of philosophy and not math. And I'm not arguing with the defined math, but I firmly stand beside the point that eventually it is not irrational to assume the same number might be rolled one more time after observing it a quintillion times.
cjo20 t1_ja9nht3 wrote
The “absurdly unlikely” part comes in to play in being able to view the events from two different perspectives.
One is that, if someone claimed at the outset, that they could predict the next quintillion rolls of the die (whatever values those might be), the probability of all of them being correct is vanishingly small - each of the 6^quintillion combinations almost certainly won’t show up, only one will, and you’re relying on picking that one sequence.
However, once you’ve correctly predicted the quintillion rolls in a row, if you then say “I’m going to roll a 6 next”, you aren’t any more or less likely to get it right than you were on the first roll.
The probability of being able to predict (N+1) correct dice rolls is N * 1/6.
1 roll: 1/6
2 rolls: 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36
3 rolls: 1/36 * 1/6 = 1/216 Etc.
If you’ve already done the N dice rolls, you’ve already dealt with the probability of getting to where you are in the chain of rolls. The probability to advance to the next step in the chain is always the same though, even if the chances of you successfully getting to that point in the chain are infinitesimal. You’d still expect 5/6 to get it wrong at the next roll, 35/36 to get it wrong in the next 2 rolls, and 215/216 to get it wrong in the next 3 rolls.
johrnjohrn t1_ja9oihv wrote
You have done a good job of explaining the math. And thank you.
Now, you're sitting at that gambling table and someone gives you the opportunity to choose one number that will appear on the die for the next roll after one quintillion. Are you going to choose some number other than the one that came up one quintillion times or some other number? I imagine you would choose the same number instead of picking some other number at random.
cjo20 t1_ja9p3u1 wrote
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter which number I pick, I’ve still got the same chance of being right as with any other number.
People can use superstition to help them decide, but it doesn’t make them any more likely to be right. Some people will choose 6 because “that’s got to be right, it’s happened so often”. Others will choose their favourite number “because that’s lucky”. Others will choose anything but 6 because “they can’t be that lucky”. Any logic you try and apply to it to say “this outcome is more likely than any other” is just your brain tricking you.
johrnjohrn t1_ja9s99d wrote
Would you not sit up at a story on the news where someone rolled 7's at a craps table for a year straight, only stopping to eat and sleep? If you paid any attention to that story would you be a fool? They bring officials in and claim the game is still fair and allow it to continue. Are you a fool if you claim it is rigged? Now that same roller rolls for multiple decades. Do you still calmly say, "we are foolish to assume this person will roll 7's one more time just because of the past 50 years they have continued to roll 7's. Each roll is a new roll." ?
cjo20 t1_ja9trp6 wrote
If you’re trying to construct an actual scenario, a casino wouldn’t let that happen. They’d kick the player out because “they believe them to be an advantaged player”, because they don’t like losing money. And eventually you reach a point where it’s simply more likely that there is a bias somewhere in the system that hasn’t been detected yet.
That means it would be a feature of the system (player / table / dice) rather than of the maths - the maths is based on perfectly controlled probabilities.
Practically, you can’t ensure it’s a 100% fair system, so the simple “each outcome is 1/6” breaks down. If you could guarantee that it was perfectly fair, then what I said earlier stands. In a Real-World situation, the assumptions change significantly - you can’t have perfect knowledge of everyone’s intentions, whether it could be a scam etc.
EDIT: however, most gamblers fallacies aren’t based on the idea “I have actual evidence that the system is rigged”. Things like “5 hasn’t come up on the roulette wheel, it must be overdue” aren’t based on an assumption of bias, they’re based on an assumption of fairness, which says that eventually all numbers will come up equally. However, they don’t have to come up equally before the heat death of the universe.
johrnjohrn t1_ja9vmsv wrote
I'm not trying to construct an actual scenario. I am constructing a hypothetical scenario that says there is no chance that the system is rigged, and there are a quintillion throws that are all identical, which is entirely possible, but highly improbable. In real life we can say, "that would never happen", but the math says you are incorrect and it 100% could happen. Now, this situation, which is mathematically possible, plays out (hypothetically). Which bet are you going to make after the one quintillionth throw? And are you a fool if you use past information to say the next throw will remain the same as the past quintillion?
cjo20 t1_ja9x1ev wrote
Again, if it’s guaranteed to be mathematically exactly fair, then by the maths I posted earlier, claiming you have better than 1/6 chance of getting the next one right is mathematically impossible, by definition.
To be clear: you’re defining a situation whereby you are guaranteed to only have a 1/6 chance of getting the next number correct, whichever you pick, and then saying “isn’t it better to stick with the number that came up before?”. Simply, no, it’s not, because of the way you defined the system.
Monimonika18 t1_jadhi4i wrote
Thanks for pointing out that commenter's moving goalposts.
Nerdloaf t1_ja9tszy wrote
The poster is conflating two different and unrelated things. Determining whether a coin is fair, or putting a probability on it being fair after observing a number of tosses has very little to do with “if I just got three heads in a row with a fair coin, what’s the probability of getting a fourth?”.
johrnjohrn t1_ja9fnnh wrote
To add to this, maybe what I'm touching on without knowing it is similar to the problems Einstein was trying to solve when euclidian geometry failed. Yes, space bends as does time when you get off the paper and into the real universe. Probablities that explain away the gamblers fallacy as a fallacy maybe break in the real world when pushed to the same brink as Einstein pushed things when he invented relativity. Maybe??
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments