Statistics 101

That time is a factor? You must have me confused with someone else. That's precisely the reasoning that I've been repudiating for 160 posts; that's why I introduced the Monty Hall problem in the first place, to show how the probabilities don't change simply because of time. That's the point. Like I said you have me confused with someone else. That's the position I've been refuting, not the position I've been advancing.

quote:

---

That time is a factor? You must have me confused with someone else

---

No, I've got that right. You made it up.

quote:

---

Like I said you have me confused with someone else. That's the position I've been refuting, not the position I've been advancing

---

But it's not the position held by the people you've been arguing against. It's a strawman. And you invented it.

Riverrat advanced literally that position not ten posts ago, so clearly this is completely false. Where do you think he got it, Paul? Do you think he made it up himself?

quote:

---

Riverrat advanced literally that position not ten posts ago, so clearly this is completely false. Where do you think he got it, Paul? Do you think he made it up himself?

---

I think that he got it FROM YOUR POSTS. As I quite clearly said.So am I to beleive that you can read my posts well enough to nitpick the phrasing, but not well enough to notice the point I'm making ?

From a position I'm not advancing? Repudiating, in fact?How about instead of telling me stupid stuff you try and explain probability to Riverrat? This is getting a little ridiculous.

quote:

---

From a position I'm not advancing? Repudiating, in fact?

---

Well he's not getting it from anyone else, is he ?
The idea appears quite prominently in his posts so perhaps you managed to fool him. Even if you didn't fool the peope you were msrepresenting.

quote:

---

How about instead of telling me stupid stuff you try and explain probability to Riverrat? This is getting a little ridiculous.

---

For your information I AM trying to explain it to RR. In fact you ought to know that because you started this latest discussion by responding to a post where I did just that. So why try to imply otherwise ?

Oh, is that what you thought you were doing? Because the post I read and replied to blamed me for convincing RR of a position I've been arguing against, as if that could make any sense.I was done with the discussion (and I'm done again, now.) Don't blame me because you chose to start it up again.

quote:

---

Oh, is that what you thought you were doing? Because the post I read and replied to blamed me for convincing RR of a position I've been arguing against, as if that could make any sense.

---

Since it was a reply to RR, and RR responded to it it seems that RR managed to do a better job of reading my post than you did.And yes it makes perfect sense to suppose that RR picked up the idea from THE ONLY PERSON WHO MENTIONED IT.

Right, and without time, you never get that additional information.

First off, I am not resistant to anything, I agree with all that is said. I also stand by my first statement.I admitted that I got the monty hall problem wrong at first, then I studied it in wikipedia, even conducted the card experiments to see it in action, and I totally understand it, before I responded to it.And to answer your question, that you so earnstly seek, the probability is 50%.Now answer my question, what is the probability that you will actually get 50% after 100 coin tosses?

Crash never gave me the impression that time was a factor, I believe he was arguing the opposite.

The quote from the OP:
the odds of playing the lotto are 1 million to 1, but if you win on your first try, your personal odds for that play were 1-1, is my quote from another thread. I have included time in the figuring of odds for the last twenty years.
I get odds, and how they work, but like I asked nator, if the odds of a coin toss are 50-50, then what are the odds after 100 tosses, that you will actually get 50-50?
Odds are awesome, odds are great, you can live your life by odds if you want to. I would only use it as a last resort, and thats been my experience in life. I may change that point of view one day, but it is how I feel now.As you can see, I have a hang up with odds. Yes, I understand their "importance" in science, yet somehow we always seem to beat the odds. In fact, if there is any odds that something will happen, it always seems to happen, eventually.Maybe if we knew more about life and the unviverse and everything (42) we might understand how playing the lotto can result in a 1-1 chance of winning, before we play.We should rename this forum, objectiveness vs subjectiveness

Exactly? About 7.5%, I think.

OK, so where did you get the idea from ? Nobody else suggested it Did you make it up yourself ?

quote:

---

Right, and without time, you never get that additional information.

---

i.e time is NOT a factor in itself. Just like I said.