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

[David Morris]

It does seem that the Monte Carlo Fallacy is at odds wit the Large Number
Theory.  I don't know anything about statistics, but I'm sure this isn't
the first time this question has been asked.

David Morris

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Thomas Eckhardt <
thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de> wrote:

>  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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160513/fd108757/attachment.html>