## Another probability question

This is a discussion on Another probability question within the General Trading Chat forums, part of the Reception category; I would never have 90% confidence. The only way you can be any more &quot;confident&quot; is to record what was ...

 Jun 7, 2011, 11:29am #17 Joined Jan 2005 Re: Another probability question I would never have 90% confidence. The only way you can be any more "confident" is to record what was thrown before. If i threw a tails, the chance was 0.4 = 40% I Threw again, the chance of another tails is 0.4 x 0.4 = 16% Threfore chance of heads = 84% I Threw again, the chance of yet another tails is 0.4 x 0.4 x 0.4 = 6.4% therefore Heads = 95.4% You could say "statistically" the chances of a heads are improving but they are still really only 60% each time as each toss is independant of the previous tosses I think thats right. Would've been easier to look at google instead of giving me the opportunity to waste my time! __________________ Coop --Don't mock stupid dwarves. It's not big and it's not clever!--
 Jun 7, 2011, 6:23pm #18 Joined Jul 2008 Re: Another probability question Faith in humanity...waning.... __________________ I'm just the guy that never tried, I'm just the stupid **** with brilliant luck and sometimes a bright idea.
 Jun 7, 2011, 7:30pm #19 Joined Mar 2007 Re: Another probability question your all barking up wrong trees on this thread or im just barking __________________ What's all this 'original' con? We all live in the same museum We all rearrange the same old song. GN
 Jun 7, 2011, 7:38pm #20 Joined Jul 2003 Re: Another probability question It's Ok, they're binary trees.
Jun 7, 2011, 7:42pm   #21

Joined Mar 2007
Re: Another probability question

Quote:
 Originally Posted by TheBramble It's Ok, they're binary trees.
thats ok then
thanks
__________________
What's all this 'original' con?
We all live in the same museum
We all rearrange the same old song.
GN

 Jun 7, 2011, 7:45pm #22 Joined Jul 2003 Re: Another probability question Aw come on, that was quite clever; for this thread...