>>>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Next toss it's not 1:4 you'll get heads, then for a third 1:16 (1:8 or whatever) - it's still 1:2. By the end of 64 tosses, by that logic, like the old grains of sand on a chessboard conundrum, the chances of getting heads would be practically infinity:1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We're talking about the difference between getting heads on any one throw and getting heads *every time* in a series of throws. Your logic would dictate that there's a 50/50 chance of throwing heads an infinite number of times in succession<g>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, the argument was about the chances of winning the lottery twice, not "*every time* in a series of " entries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The chances of getting heads FIVE TIMES, in, say, 10 throws is 1:2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The chances of getting heads TWICE in 10 throws are BETTER than 1:2 (I'd take any bet on that!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you mean *at least* twice you'd be right. But your logic is still wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How about a deck of cards. The chances of the top card being, say, a king is 13-1. The chances of the second card being a king is slightly better . But the chances of there being two kings on top is 221-1 (13 * 17).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The lottery argument is the same. Start with the odds of winning twice in succession - that's bascially the original chance squared. Given that the odds are so long even making the calculation after playing a few thousand more times the odds aren't much more in your favour......
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're mixing up separate events (the lotteries) with single events (the cards). These are very different sorts of calculations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, they are. Terry seems to be having a hard time grasping that.
>>>>
>>>>If you agree that the 2 lottery wins are separate events, then why are you arguing that the odds change just because the guy won it once before? They really and truly don't. Basically, you're arguing Karma. Because a person won once, his odds of winning again are reduced dramatically. That may be Karma, but it's bad statistics.
>>>
>>>
>>>I never said the odds change. The point I joined in on was the odds of winning twice. Not the odds of winning again given that you've won once already.
>>
>>Then why did you tell me that Tamar was not wrong? Her point was that since they won once, the odds of them winning again could be summarily discounted. I said that was incorrect and you said it was not.
>
>
>I don't think she said that. If she did, I misunderstood.

I guess it's a matter of interpretation:

Now, the lottery thing isn't actually that simple. 22.5M x 22.5M would actually be the chance of winning both of two particular drawings rather than the lifetime chance of winning twice. That's somewhat higher, since each time you play, you have the same chance, but with the odds so small, the repeat plays don't count for much.

It's that last part that I zeroed in on. "...the repeat plays don't count for much." They count for exactly the same 'much' that any other play does. That was my original point. And I still say if the odds are 15,000,000 to 1 against winning, then if you win, the odds remain 15,000,000 to 1 against winning again.

My sister has a theory that I'm sure many people believe. When she plays the lottery, she increases her odds of winning by not playing numbers that have basically "no chance" of coming up. For example, she won't play 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 since (in her logic) that has less of a chance of coming up than say 2, 15, 17, 22, 34, 41. She actually believes this. So she cuts out runs of numbers and other 'obviously impossible series', thus 'increasing her odds' dramatically.

The mind boggles.