Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
One is to believe that, for example, getting heads from a coin toss five times in a row gives a higher chance to get tails on the next one. Truth is: it does not. The coin doesn't care about previous tosses. (This one is called "Gambler's Fallacy").
This thread is apparently an example of this bias.
OP, do your math once you are at a few thousands attempts. A few dozens isn't enough to use statistics reliably.
However, that number could be wrong, but also, as others have stated, a sample size of 18 is very small. 100 would be better, maybe 250 would suffice (I'm not saying literally use the eternal dice 250 times; maybe find a way to make a simulation?)
In retrospective, it should've been obvious that something like this wasn't real, but a part of me still wishes that it was.