Why is this not possible? I don't understand it. Let's take the extreme to make my point clear:
>A perfect and theoretical coin has been tossed 1000 times and it was head all the times
Why is it not more likely the next toss is tails? It seems to me it HAS to be more probable because throwing 5 heads in a row is more unlikely than throwing 4 and throwing 6 heads is more unlikely than throwing 5 and so on. From that it gives that the more strikes we have the more likely the strike is likely to be broken on the next toss.
Since it is a perfect coin the heads and tail will have to even out to 50% in the long run and for that to happen it MUST be so that the probability for tails increase with the number of heads.
Why is every source and schoolbook saying I am wrong on this when logic says I'm not? Please halp me
>Inb4 each toss is a separate event untouched by the past
That doesn't really help me
>A perfect and theoretical coin has been tossed 1000 times and it was head all the times
Why is it not more likely the next toss is tails? It seems to me it HAS to be more probable because throwing 5 heads in a row is more unlikely than throwing 4 and throwing 6 heads is more unlikely than throwing 5 and so on. From that it gives that the more strikes we have the more likely the strike is likely to be broken on the next toss.
Since it is a perfect coin the heads and tail will have to even out to 50% in the long run and for that to happen it MUST be so that the probability for tails increase with the number of heads.
Why is every source and schoolbook saying I am wrong on this when logic says I'm not? Please halp me
>Inb4 each toss is a separate event untouched by the past
That doesn't really help me
