Probability of a single trial within binomial experiment vs. stand-alone bernoulli experiment












2














When a flip a coin several times, each throw is independent from another. In other words, my coin does not know what came out previous time. So, each next flip the result is unpredictable and random. Now, suppose I flipped a fair coin three times and got each time a head (head-head-head). Intuitively, the head cannot come out “head” all the time, so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail. But each flip is an independent event - the coin does not know what came out last time.



How this paradox is resolved?



Many thanks!






probability binomial-distribution paradoxes







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 3




    I see no paradox, given trials are independent.
    – coffeemath
    2 hours ago
















2














When a flip a coin several times, each throw is independent from another. In other words, my coin does not know what came out previous time. So, each next flip the result is unpredictable and random. Now, suppose I flipped a fair coin three times and got each time a head (head-head-head). Intuitively, the head cannot come out “head” all the time, so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail. But each flip is an independent event - the coin does not know what came out last time.



How this paradox is resolved?



Many thanks!






probability binomial-distribution paradoxes







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 3




    I see no paradox, given trials are independent.
    – coffeemath
    2 hours ago














2












2








2


1





When a flip a coin several times, each throw is independent from another. In other words, my coin does not know what came out previous time. So, each next flip the result is unpredictable and random. Now, suppose I flipped a fair coin three times and got each time a head (head-head-head). Intuitively, the head cannot come out “head” all the time, so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail. But each flip is an independent event - the coin does not know what came out last time.



How this paradox is resolved?



Many thanks!






probability binomial-distribution paradoxes







share|cite|improve this question















When a flip a coin several times, each throw is independent from another. In other words, my coin does not know what came out previous time. So, each next flip the result is unpredictable and random. Now, suppose I flipped a fair coin three times and got each time a head (head-head-head). Intuitively, the head cannot come out “head” all the time, so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail. But each flip is an independent event - the coin does not know what came out last time.



How this paradox is resolved?



Many thanks!






probability binomial-distribution paradoxes




probability binomial-distribution paradoxes






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Eevee Trainer

3,708326




3,708326










asked 2 hours ago









John

856




856








  • 3




    I see no paradox, given trials are independent.
    – coffeemath
    2 hours ago














  • 3




    I see no paradox, given trials are independent.
    – coffeemath
    2 hours ago








3




3




I see no paradox, given trials are independent.
– coffeemath
2 hours ago




I see no paradox, given trials are independent.
– coffeemath
2 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2














If you flipped a fair coin three times and got heads each time, then on the next toss your probability of getting heads is $1/2$. The fact that you just flipped three heads in a row is irrelevant. There is no paradox.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • But what if I look retrospectively on the whole sequence? If I did get 4 gets, I would said that how lucky I was to get 4 out of 4 heads. But if I received fourth tail, I would say that 3 out of 4 heads is not so low chances.
    – John
    1 hour ago










  • @John The probability on getting $4$ heads by $4$ throws is exactly the same as getting at first $3$ heads and then as last a tail. Also in that case you can say: "how lucky I was to get $3$ heads at first and then a tail as last."
    – drhab
    1 hour ago



















2















Intuitively, the head cannot come out “head” all the time, so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail.




This marks the error.



Granted, there is no paradox - your error is known as the gambler's fallacy (or Monte Carlo fallacy). By assuming that tails is more likely, you assume that the trials are not independent even though they are. The fallacy is then that you feel the events are dependent, when they're not.



This was actually touched on in a recent Numberphile video somewhat: we think that streaks or heads of tails is nonrandom, i.e. would be a hint or sign of dependence or bias, when really they're not.



So there is no paradox, just bad intuition because of how human intuition tends to work.






share|cite|improve this answer































    1















    "...so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail"




    By independence there is no reason at all for expecting that, so there is no paradox.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053677%2fprobability-of-a-single-trial-within-binomial-experiment-vs-stand-alone-bernoul%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      2














      If you flipped a fair coin three times and got heads each time, then on the next toss your probability of getting heads is $1/2$. The fact that you just flipped three heads in a row is irrelevant. There is no paradox.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • But what if I look retrospectively on the whole sequence? If I did get 4 gets, I would said that how lucky I was to get 4 out of 4 heads. But if I received fourth tail, I would say that 3 out of 4 heads is not so low chances.
        – John
        1 hour ago










      • @John The probability on getting $4$ heads by $4$ throws is exactly the same as getting at first $3$ heads and then as last a tail. Also in that case you can say: "how lucky I was to get $3$ heads at first and then a tail as last."
        – drhab
        1 hour ago
















      2














      If you flipped a fair coin three times and got heads each time, then on the next toss your probability of getting heads is $1/2$. The fact that you just flipped three heads in a row is irrelevant. There is no paradox.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • But what if I look retrospectively on the whole sequence? If I did get 4 gets, I would said that how lucky I was to get 4 out of 4 heads. But if I received fourth tail, I would say that 3 out of 4 heads is not so low chances.
        – John
        1 hour ago










      • @John The probability on getting $4$ heads by $4$ throws is exactly the same as getting at first $3$ heads and then as last a tail. Also in that case you can say: "how lucky I was to get $3$ heads at first and then a tail as last."
        – drhab
        1 hour ago














      2












      2








      2






      If you flipped a fair coin three times and got heads each time, then on the next toss your probability of getting heads is $1/2$. The fact that you just flipped three heads in a row is irrelevant. There is no paradox.






      share|cite|improve this answer












      If you flipped a fair coin three times and got heads each time, then on the next toss your probability of getting heads is $1/2$. The fact that you just flipped three heads in a row is irrelevant. There is no paradox.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered 2 hours ago









      littleO

      28.9k644106




      28.9k644106












      • But what if I look retrospectively on the whole sequence? If I did get 4 gets, I would said that how lucky I was to get 4 out of 4 heads. But if I received fourth tail, I would say that 3 out of 4 heads is not so low chances.
        – John
        1 hour ago










      • @John The probability on getting $4$ heads by $4$ throws is exactly the same as getting at first $3$ heads and then as last a tail. Also in that case you can say: "how lucky I was to get $3$ heads at first and then a tail as last."
        – drhab
        1 hour ago


















      • But what if I look retrospectively on the whole sequence? If I did get 4 gets, I would said that how lucky I was to get 4 out of 4 heads. But if I received fourth tail, I would say that 3 out of 4 heads is not so low chances.
        – John
        1 hour ago










      • @John The probability on getting $4$ heads by $4$ throws is exactly the same as getting at first $3$ heads and then as last a tail. Also in that case you can say: "how lucky I was to get $3$ heads at first and then a tail as last."
        – drhab
        1 hour ago
















      But what if I look retrospectively on the whole sequence? If I did get 4 gets, I would said that how lucky I was to get 4 out of 4 heads. But if I received fourth tail, I would say that 3 out of 4 heads is not so low chances.
      – John
      1 hour ago




      But what if I look retrospectively on the whole sequence? If I did get 4 gets, I would said that how lucky I was to get 4 out of 4 heads. But if I received fourth tail, I would say that 3 out of 4 heads is not so low chances.
      – John
      1 hour ago












      @John The probability on getting $4$ heads by $4$ throws is exactly the same as getting at first $3$ heads and then as last a tail. Also in that case you can say: "how lucky I was to get $3$ heads at first and then a tail as last."
      – drhab
      1 hour ago




      @John The probability on getting $4$ heads by $4$ throws is exactly the same as getting at first $3$ heads and then as last a tail. Also in that case you can say: "how lucky I was to get $3$ heads at first and then a tail as last."
      – drhab
      1 hour ago











      2















      Intuitively, the head cannot come out “head” all the time, so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail.




      This marks the error.



      Granted, there is no paradox - your error is known as the gambler's fallacy (or Monte Carlo fallacy). By assuming that tails is more likely, you assume that the trials are not independent even though they are. The fallacy is then that you feel the events are dependent, when they're not.



      This was actually touched on in a recent Numberphile video somewhat: we think that streaks or heads of tails is nonrandom, i.e. would be a hint or sign of dependence or bias, when really they're not.



      So there is no paradox, just bad intuition because of how human intuition tends to work.






      share|cite|improve this answer




























        2















        Intuitively, the head cannot come out “head” all the time, so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail.




        This marks the error.



        Granted, there is no paradox - your error is known as the gambler's fallacy (or Monte Carlo fallacy). By assuming that tails is more likely, you assume that the trials are not independent even though they are. The fallacy is then that you feel the events are dependent, when they're not.



        This was actually touched on in a recent Numberphile video somewhat: we think that streaks or heads of tails is nonrandom, i.e. would be a hint or sign of dependence or bias, when really they're not.



        So there is no paradox, just bad intuition because of how human intuition tends to work.






        share|cite|improve this answer


























          2












          2








          2







          Intuitively, the head cannot come out “head” all the time, so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail.




          This marks the error.



          Granted, there is no paradox - your error is known as the gambler's fallacy (or Monte Carlo fallacy). By assuming that tails is more likely, you assume that the trials are not independent even though they are. The fallacy is then that you feel the events are dependent, when they're not.



          This was actually touched on in a recent Numberphile video somewhat: we think that streaks or heads of tails is nonrandom, i.e. would be a hint or sign of dependence or bias, when really they're not.



          So there is no paradox, just bad intuition because of how human intuition tends to work.






          share|cite|improve this answer















          Intuitively, the head cannot come out “head” all the time, so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail.




          This marks the error.



          Granted, there is no paradox - your error is known as the gambler's fallacy (or Monte Carlo fallacy). By assuming that tails is more likely, you assume that the trials are not independent even though they are. The fallacy is then that you feel the events are dependent, when they're not.



          This was actually touched on in a recent Numberphile video somewhat: we think that streaks or heads of tails is nonrandom, i.e. would be a hint or sign of dependence or bias, when really they're not.



          So there is no paradox, just bad intuition because of how human intuition tends to work.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 1 hour ago

























          answered 2 hours ago









          Eevee Trainer

          3,708326




          3,708326























              1















              "...so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail"




              By independence there is no reason at all for expecting that, so there is no paradox.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                1















                "...so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail"




                By independence there is no reason at all for expecting that, so there is no paradox.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  "...so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail"




                  By independence there is no reason at all for expecting that, so there is no paradox.






                  share|cite|improve this answer













                  "...so I can expect the on fourth throw to have higher chances to get finally a tail"




                  By independence there is no reason at all for expecting that, so there is no paradox.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 1 hour ago









                  drhab

                  97.4k544128




                  97.4k544128






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053677%2fprobability-of-a-single-trial-within-binomial-experiment-vs-stand-alone-bernoul%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Le Mesnil-Réaume

                      Image
                      Le Mesnil-Réaume Region Normandie Département Seine-Maritime Arrondissement Dieppe Kanton Eu Gemeindeverband Villes Sœurs Koordinaten 49° 58′  N , 1° 27′  O 49.9725 1.4463888888889 Koordinaten: 49° 58′  N , 1° 27′  O Höhe 92–156 m Fläche 5,55 km 2 Einwohner 793 (1. Januar 2016) Bevölkerungsdichte 143 Einw./km 2 Postleitzahl 76260 INSEE-Code 76435 Website http://www.mesnil-reaume.net/ Rathaus (Mairie) und Schule von Le Mesnil-Réaume Le Mesnil-Réaume ist eine französische Gemeinde mit 793 Einwohnern (Stand: 1. Januar 2016) im Département Seine-Maritime in der Region Normandie (vor 2016 Haute-Normandie). Sie gehört zum Arrondissement Dieppe und zum Kanton Eu. Die Einwohner werden Mesnillais genannt. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Geographie 2 Bevölkerungsentwicklung 3 Sehenswürdigkeiten 4 Weblinks Geographie | Le Mesnil-Réaume liegt etwa 43 Kilomet
                      Read more

                      Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

                      Image
                      Die Lage des Ida-Boy-Ed-Gartens, rot markiert Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten, Blick von der Wakenitzmauer durch das Tor in der Stadtmauer Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten ist eine Straße der Lübecker Altstadt. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Lage 2 Geschichte 3 Literatur 4 Weblinks Lage | Der etwa 90 Meter lange Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten befindet sich an der nördlichen Spitze der Altstadtinsel, vor dem Burgtor. Die in einem Bogen durch eine Grünanlage hangaufwärts führende Straße verbindet die Wakenitzmauer mit der Burgtorbrücke. Geschichte | Der heutige Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten wurde ursprünglich als Verlängerung der Wakenitzmauer angelegt. 1903 wurde in den erhaltenen Teil der mittelalterlichen Stadtmauer, an dem die Wakenitzmauer bei der Einmündung der Kaiserstraße begann, ein Tor mit einem großen Bogen für die Durchführung der Straße und zwei kleineren seitlichen Öffnungen für Fußgänger gebrochen, um für die neu errichteten Wohnhäuser in diesem Bereich
                      Read more

                      web3.py web3.isConnected() returns false always

                      Image
                      1 I am trying an tutorial on web3.py so i created a profile in infura and used its project id.But it shows false always when i try web3.isConnected() PS C:UsersHP> python Python 3.6.3 (v3.6.3:2c5fed8, Oct 3 2017, 18:11:49) [MSC v.1900 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> from web3 import Web3 >>> infura_url = "mainnet.infura.io/v3/******************************" >>> web3 = Web3(Web3.HTTPProvider(infura_url)) >>> web3.isConnected() False web3.py share | improve this question
                      Read more