The authors are economists, not mathematicians. Economists are famously prone to bad pattern calls.
I strongly disagree with your assessment. The article isn’t built on flawed measurement methodology, it exposes an analysis flaw that was overlooked until now. The probable result of a fair coin flip being 50/50 isn’t challenged. In fact, the coin flip example is used because that won’t be challenged.Quote: QFIT
Sorry, but the article is utter nonsense built upon a flawed measurement methodology.
The only point of this thread was to start a discussion on "hot hand". I don't even play roulette. However I have friends all over the gambling landscape.
As far as hurting anyone's head. I suggest that maybe this topic doesn't interest you or others who have said it's idiotic. Anyhow, I think it's been established now that sequences are different than individual outcomes. And a fair bet on any random flip is different than betting on what will happen on a "conditional" flip. The link in the first post explains this better than I ever will. As far as convincing, there is nothing be argued that I know of. Discussion is fun but there seems to be no real disagreement among the posts I've read.
If we observe a string of 1000 coin flips of a fair coin. And we then pick out any/all sequence of 4 flips that has 1 or more heads in the first 3 spots ex.HHHT or THHT or HHTT or TTHH or HTTH or THHH etc..
Would you bet that the next coin after any observed head, is more or less (or equally) likely to be a head?
In any coin flip string of 1000 flips (or 100 or 10000 or 100000 etc) circle all that have any of the above patterns? What's the odds that the coin "X" after these specific patterns, will be another head.
For example, H H H "X". Do you think X=Heads = 50%? Why or why not?
I am not one of the "50% religion" crowd. Some people have imbibed too much "i.i.d."Quote: BleedingChipsSlowly
The example illustrates a facet of small sample analysis that appears to have been overlooked: given the occurrence of an event, the probability of a re-occurrence for the next sample is less than the probability of the event occurring in general. This applies to small sample analysis and is in no way useful for predicting when a “hot streak” will start or end.