BtZ42 Section 9 (pp 53-60): the sieve of chance

[Thomas Eckhardt]

  Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> P. 56:
> 
> “But squares that have already* had* several hits, I 
>mean—”
> 
> “I’m sorry. That’s the Monte Carlo Fallacy..."

I look at it like this: It is highly unlikely that the 
roulette ball settles on black for 26 times in a row. But 
once it *has* settled on black for 26 times in a row, the 
probability for it to do so again with the next spin of 
the wheel is the same as before (48.6 per cent, that is).

At least that's how I explain it to the kids...

> Where the bettors went wrong was that 26 spins of a 
>roulette wheel simply isn't that large a number. 

Hmmm. It would have been the same probability even if the 
ball at that point had settled on black for a few million 
times in a row, no?
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l