This is nonsense. Past results cannot effect the probability of independent chance.
I'm beginning to expect you're simply trolling.
Jury Service: Attending against employer's wishes.
- Thread starter £15
- Start date
This is nonsense. Past results cannot effect the probability of independent chance.
I'm beginning to expect you're simply trolling.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,810
- Location
- Inverness,
your employer are assuming the worst here in that you will be doing this for several days. They may, like with me, get lucky and you may turn up only to be told you are not selected to be on the jury and again like me, be asked not to come back as there is no need for me.
I enjoyed taking some time off from work for it though. Your employer should listen to your reasoning however as its stupid for them to make you defer it only to be worse off when its even busier.
what ever you decide, good luck in court or enjoy your work and you will be seeing jury duty again soon.
I enjoyed taking some time off from work for it though. Your employer should listen to your reasoning however as its stupid for them to make you defer it only to be worse off when its even busier.
what ever you decide, good luck in court or enjoy your work and you will be seeing jury duty again soon.
On predicting a single occurance then the probability is the same. Predicting two occurences then probabilities change. Another consideration is the selection process is only finite, there are x events that will occur before you are no longer on the list. As each event occurs then the number remaining reduces so the probability of ever being picked changes too regardless of historical events.
The selection process is infinite...
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
No, just no. Your chance of winning the lottery on the 1st or the 1000th time are exactly the same.
Let's stick with the lottery -
If I have never won the lottery, the odds of me winning twice are much worse than the chance of me winning once.
However, once I have won the lottery once, the odds of me winning a second time are the same as anyone else's.
The reason for this is that you've already won once, so that outcome is certain. It's 1/1. We're only dealing with the odds of my winning the lottery now.
I would hope not! When you kick the bucket you tend not to get selected, althought I wouldn't be surprised!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
delta0, you must be trolling. I and other and pointed out the gambler's fallacy and yet you continue to argue the point. Given you clearly didn't click the link I posted earlier I quoted it for you...
In other words, flipping a coin 10 times in this sequence...
H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T
...has the exact same probability as flipping
H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H
..or any other sequence you can think of. You are no more likely to get '10 heads in a row' than '2 head in a row followed by 3 tails followed by another head then 2 more tails and finally 3 heads'.
When you've rolled your 9th head in a row, the coin has no brain so it doesn't think "wow 9 heads in a row, I better change my odds so it's more likely he gets tails next". On the 10th flip I have a 50% chance of getting a head on that flip (as I did on every flip previously).
A repetition of rare events BEFORE they occur does indeed necessitate multiplication which lowers the chance BEFORE it happens. What you are not getting is once that event has happened, then the chance of it happening again AT THAT POINT is the same and doesn't lower.
Therefore someone who has never done jury service is less likely to be called twice than once. However once they are called for it, the chance of them being called again AT THAT POINT IN TIME is the same as it was for being called the first time.
Conclusion, doing Jury service does not (assuming a random selection process) lessen your chances of being called again. You do not do it to "get it out of the way" as was implied by the OP.
In other words, flipping a coin 10 times in this sequence...
H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T
...has the exact same probability as flipping
H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H
..or any other sequence you can think of. You are no more likely to get '10 heads in a row' than '2 head in a row followed by 3 tails followed by another head then 2 more tails and finally 3 heads'.
When you've rolled your 9th head in a row, the coin has no brain so it doesn't think "wow 9 heads in a row, I better change my odds so it's more likely he gets tails next". On the 10th flip I have a 50% chance of getting a head on that flip (as I did on every flip previously).
A repetition of rare events BEFORE they occur does indeed necessitate multiplication which lowers the chance BEFORE it happens. What you are not getting is once that event has happened, then the chance of it happening again AT THAT POINT is the same and doesn't lower.
Therefore someone who has never done jury service is less likely to be called twice than once. However once they are called for it, the chance of them being called again AT THAT POINT IN TIME is the same as it was for being called the first time.
Conclusion, doing Jury service does not (assuming a random selection process) lessen your chances of being called again. You do not do it to "get it out of the way" as was implied by the OP.
Last edited:
I agree. What changes now is how many more times you play as this will be reducing your probability will chance over the total number of events that occurs. For a one off event the probability is always the same.
Agreed.
If you are calculating our chances of winning before the 1000 games started, then yes you have 1000 chances of winning against my one. Whether you've used the same numbers seems irrelevant though.
No... if you've won the lottery already then that is history and does not affect the probability of winning the next draw. Are you really saying that if you had won the last 999 lotteries then you'd have a lower probability than I would have winning the 1000th? (And if so, how is that consistent with the first quote above?)
In exactly that order then no difference. Each flip is linked to the one before it must occur exactly as you predict for it to occur. So the probability is (1/2)^10 = 1/1024 of those exact combinations.
delta0, the OP has already received a summons - the coin was flipped. The odds of him getting a second summons (the result of a second coin flip) is the same.
Prior to receiving the summons, the odds of him receving two summons were lower than receving just one.
Prior to receiving the summons, the odds of him receving two summons were lower than receving just one.
Last edited:
Ok, so halfway through I decided to choose the other side. After the 5th flip, I decide to reverse my next (6th) flip's prediction. What are my odds now? You can choose which pattern.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
The fact delta0 thinks playing the same numbers on the lottery every week affects your chances of winning (as opposed to buying a lucky dip every week) tells you all you need to know about his expertise in probabilities.
Agree but there are multiple events occuring in future. Just one of events have the same probability.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
No, because no matter how many times you play the lottery, you've the same conditions. The odds of you rolling a six on a dice is 1/6 each time you roll it.
If your point is that if you play the lottery every week over 10 years than you have a greater chance of winning than if you play it once, then you're right. But you could have better odds by playing all of those tickets on the same occasion.
the only reason your odds of winning are "better" if you play every week, is because the odds of you winning if you don't play are 0.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,810
- Location
- Inverness,
you should know by now that GD threads only have a specific topic at the whim of the mods,
you should know by now that GD threads only have a specific topic at the whim of the mods,
True
Hopefuly it works out for the OP. I think the company should have had enough time to prepare. Seems like they are trying to defer indefinitely.