Hillary Clinton Has The Most Statistically Improbable Coin-Toss Luck Ever

a reply to: tanka418

Were talking about runs with a 50/50 chance of winning, if you flipped a coin a thousand times and recorded the results. The probabilities would flatten out, the more flips you did the more the math would show that the chances of a run of six would work out to 1 in 64. A random number calculator with no bias would be even better.
In Gambling a run of six, with an original dollar bet, with the bet going back on, would get you sixty four dollars back, but you would with regards to probability theory have to put it on sixty four times. Not really much point
The only way it works with some success is in Martingale betting, where majority of the runs are odd and evens , or black and red on the roulette table. Where if you go down on the first bet you double it the next time, and so on, until you pick up and then depart the table for a week .Hopping of course you don't get a run against you where you hit the house limit. That's when you have to form a group of you so you have a few players organised, the Casinos will be watching for this, Anecdotally Tim Severin when he financed the book "The Sinbad voyages" did this in the Swiss Casinos and raised the money for the boat, 24 thousand pounds if my memory serves me correctly. He had a couple of guys organised.
Sorry to drift off topic, but probabilities are a hobby of mine.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: tanka418

Sorry to drift off topic, but probabilities are a hobby of mine.

You are preaching to the choir! I am fully aware of the probabilities. Math at that level, and, probability specifically is an integral part of my job...I've been quite successful for over 40 years...you might try explaining to some of the others how 6 coin flips is only 6 events and not 7.

I've been saying along that 1 in 64 is only "uncommon" at best, was actually about the first to say that...but, it seems that some simply have to comment after not reading, and then get the whole thing wrong.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: tanka418

Sorry to drift off topic, but probabilities are a hobby of mine.

You are preaching to the choir! I am fully aware of the probabilities. Math at that level, and, probability specifically is an integral part of my job...I've been quite successful for over 40 years...you might try explaining to some of the others how 6 coin flips is only 6 events and not 7.

I've been saying along that 1 in 64 is only "uncommon" at best, was actually about the first to say that...but, it seems that some simply have to comment after not reading, and then get the whole thing wrong.


Yes its quite fun, if you reverse the probabilities of runs, you can have fun calculating the odds in your favour of predicting an outcome. Like we have stated that after six coin flips, of say heads the chances of the next one being a head, are now 128 to one, so your odds of getting a tail are getting better.

a reply to: tanka418

Yes, there are six events. (Coin flips.)
If you were calculating the probability using the binomial formula, six is the number you would use for "Tries".
However, there are seven outcomes. (Final score arrangements.)
And there are 64 unique combinations of the results of those events.

Did you even read my second post? I specifically addressed this issue. This is an issue with semantics, not math.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: tanka418

Yes, there are six events. (Coin flips.)
If you were calculating the probability using the binomial formula, six is the number you would use for "Tries".
However, there are seven outcomes. (Final score arrangements.)

Show them . . . and their derivations.

And there are 64 unique combinations of the results of those events.

Interesting...just how are these 64 unique combinations instantiated?

a reply to: tanka418

Okay, let's lower the number of coin flips to two. There are two events. There are three outcomes.

H/T
2/0
1/1
0/2

However, there are four different unique sequences of events that can take place, which is two to the power of the number of events.

HH
HT
TH
TT

If we increase the number of events to three, there is now four outcomes.

H/T
3/0
2/1
1/2
0/3

And eight combinations of coin flips that can lead to those outcomes. (Two to the power of the number of events, three.)

String resulting in 3/0,
HHH, 1/8

Strings resulting in 2/1,
HHT
HTH
THH, 3/8

Strings resulting in 1/2,
HTT
THT
TTH, 3/8

String resulting in 0/3,
TTT, 1/8

The probability of getting exactly 2 heads is 3/8, since there are three sequences/strings where that occurs. The probability of getting at least two heads is 4/8, since that also includes the string where three heads is the result. The probability of getting at least one head is [1-1/8] or 7/8, since there is only one string that results in no heads at all. (TTT)

That is where the 64 is coming from. 2^[number of events]. Which, in this case, is 2^3 (8). In the case of the political thing, it is 2^6 (64).

As I am saying, this is an issue with semantics, not maths. The math is correct, we're just failing to understand one another.

So if you tossed a coin 640 times, you would get 10 runs of 6 heads or tails?

What are the odds of hitting it on the first 6 times?

yeah, 1-64. But don't it seem like it's still way too lucky?

Well, I guess it goes along with all the rest of her luck.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: tanka418

Okay, let's lower the number of coin flips to two. There are two events. There are three outcomes.

H/T
2/0
1/1
0/2

ROFLMAO!

Why, pray tell, did you children go to such extremes for something so irrelevant? What are you trying to obfuscate? I pointed out, pages ago, long before any of y'all jumped on this bandwagon, that 1 in 64 (the probability of 6 successful predictions in a row) was barely more than "slightly uncommon"...the whole point of such an argument. Yet you seem to have insisted that my math, my assessment of the probabilities was incorrect....when it was just some stupid misconception about what was relevant in the discussion...

Your little observation has absolutely nothing to do with probability.

a reply to: tanka418

Now you're resorting to personal attacks? How odd. I wasn't even disagreeing with you, I was explaining where the 1/64 came from, like you asked me to.

Obfuscate? What could I possibly be obfuscating?

No, 1.56% is not "slightly uncommon."
You are drastically understating how unlikely it is.

It is an extremely massive likelihood on a universal scale, but thankfully, we are not discussing things on a universal scale. We are talking about flipping a coin six times.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: tanka418

Now you're resorting to personal attacks? How odd. I wasn't even disagreeing with you, I was explaining where the 1/64 came from, like you asked me to.

A couple of things;1) there was no "personal attack". Period! I know, I know, you think you are not a child, but, I am 70, and you are acting like you are in your teens or early 20's...so...

2)I did not ask you to explain the 1 in 64 probaility; that is your misinterpretation.

No, 1.56% is not "slightly uncommon."
You are drastically understating how unlikely it is.

Am I now? Tell me; just how much work do you do, on a daily basis, that involves probability?

"Drastically underestimating..." No, I don't think so! But then, I probably have far more experience in this specifically(exposure to and analysis of probabilistic events) than you...course, it also means that I am likely a bit more jaded than most in this regard. Still, experience is an important factor; I'll leave you to go get some.