Law of Large Numbers and the Gambler's FallacyDate: 05/07/2001 at 00:58:11 From: Elvino Basilio Subject: Dice probabilities Dr. Math, To throw three dice three times together, is the same than to throw nine dice one time? We have the same average for to get one same number in the two cases? Where and how different is it? [Editor's interpretation: Should you get the same total, on average, when you make three throws of three dice each as when you throw nine dice at once?] Thank you, Basilio Date: 05/08/2001 at 14:06:52 From: Doctor TWE Subject: Re: Dice probabilities Hi Elvino - thanks for writing to Dr. Math. The sum, the average, and the probabilities of getting a particular value on one die or more aren't affected by whether the dice are rolled one at a time, in groups of 3, or all 9 at once. These are called "independent events," and the order in which they happen doesn't affect the outcome. I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, write back. - Doctor TWE, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ Date: 05/09/2001 at 18:01:50 From: Elvino Basilio Subject: Dice probabilities Ola! So, for to get one six (or other number), when I throw three dice all together I have 42,12% possibilities. If I throw the same dice, in the same way, again and again I will start, always, with the same percentage! [Editor's interpretation: So when I throw three dice, I have a 42.12% chance of rolling a total of 6. If I throw the dice over and over, I should always have the same 42.12% chance of rolling a total of 6. Is this right?] But, there are one law that said us more I throw more possibilities I have for to obtain a certain number. How works these law of probabilities? If works... [Editor's interpretation: But there is a law in probability that states that the more often I throw the dice, the closer the experimental probability should come to the theoretical probability. How does that work, if it's true?] Thank you, Basilio Date: 05/10/2001 at 13:44:43 From: Doctor TWE Subject: Re: dice probabilities Hi Basilio - thanks for writing back. >So, for to get one six (or other number), when I throw three dice all >together I have 42,12% possibilities. If I throw the same dice, in >the same way, again and again I will start, always, with the same >percentage! Yes, that's exactly right. >But, there are one law that said us more I throw more possibilities I >have for to obtain a certain number. How works these law of >probabilities? If works... There is something called the Law of Large Numbers (or the Law of Averages) which states that if you repeat a random experiment, such as tossing a coin or rolling a die, a very large number of times, your outcomes should on average be equal to (or very close to) the theoretical average. Suppose we roll three dice and get no 6's, then roll them again and still get no 6's, then roll them a third time and STILL get no 6's. (This is the equivalent of rolling nine dice at once and getting no 6's, as we discussed in the last e-mail; there's only a 19.38% chance of this happening.) The Law of Large Numbers says that if we roll them 500 more times, we should get at least one 6 (in the 3 dice) about 212 times out of the 503 rolls (.4213 * 503 = 211.9). This is *not* because the probability increases in later rolls, but rather, over the next 500 rolls, there's a chance that we'll get a "hot streak," where we might roll at least one 6 on three or more consecutive rolls. In the long run (and that's the key - we're talking about a VERY long run), it will average out. There is also something called the Gambler's Fallacy, which is the mistaken belief that the probability on the next roll changes because a particular outcome is "due." In the example above, the probability of rolling at least one 6 in the next roll of the three dice (after three rolls with no 6's) is still 42.13%. A (non-mathematician) gambler might think that the dice are "due," that in order to get the long-term average back up to 42%, the probability of the next roll getting at least one 6 must be higher than 42%. This is wrong, and hence it's called "the Gambler's Fallacy." I hope this helps. If you have any more questions or comments, write back again. - Doctor TWE, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ |
Search the Dr. Math Library: |
[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]
Ask Dr. Math^{TM}
© 1994-2015 The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/