Considers History?

[MrJ]

I got this off a math page. "Considers history"? Does that sound right? >>>

Simply put, "chance" relates to the likelihood of a future event WITH NO HISTORY considered. "Odds", on the other hand, CONSIDERS HISTORY. "Chance" is expressed as a percentage translation of the ratio of a particular outcome versus all possible outcomes.


"Odds" are expressed as a ratio WITHOUT a percentage translation. For example, if a (fair) coin is tossed 3 times and all three tosses land on heads, the PROBABILITY (odds) of the next toss coming up heads is only 1 of 16. The "CHANCE", on the other hand, never changes and is 50% on EVERY toss.

[Colbster]

I think this might be a distinction without a difference but it does bring up a point that I have spent way too many hours considering.  Any spin in the future is just future in the short-term and is about to be added to the entirety of past spins and will ultimately conform to statistical norms.  In the micro, it's 50/50 on a EC.  However, after the fact, there are going to be a ton more small series or singles than improbable streaks.  Even with the independence of spins, there is no reason to anticipate streaks that won't comply to the historical spin register.  While 50/50 is accurate, I tend to have a bias towards expected results and against the one-offs.

[Proofreaders2000]

Odds are an illusion.  Chance are the cold facts. 
(According to Mr. J's above mentioned definition)

In truth the chances of winning are considerably
lower because what's not included are casino countermeasures.

I'd say the player has a 90% chance of losing at a typical gambling game.

[MrJ]

"Odds, considers history".

That cant be correct??

Ken

[Proofreaders2000]

Human beings need past history because random has to make sense.

One bet is as good as the other, history or not.

[TwoCatSam]

Human beings need past history because random has to make sense.

One bet is as good as the other, history or not.

Well that one blew my hat in the creek!

Proof

You post dozens of systems.  Now you say one bet is as good as the other.  Seems a contradiction to me.

Sam

[Proofreaders2000]

I have one or two systems that don't use
past history and performed surprising well.

At the same time I don't have the Grail either.