送交者: xj 于 2005-5-12, 18:21:33:

In response to MIRROR's pseudo-reasoning on coin tossing example a couple days.

The post is an expansion of my draft post intended on XYS, but decided to go to my blog after some revisions.

It's short, about 500 words.

• http://xlsyu.blogspot.com

• Confusing blog, but interesting follow-up discussion. - mangolasi (1242 bytes) 2005-5-13, 16:26:06
  • common people don't know bayesian, martingale or whatever - xj (69 bytes) 2005-5-13, 17:37:54
• "law of small numbers": if the probability is low, it won't happen - 008 (313 bytes) 2005-5-12, 21:02:46
  • the point is common people won't correct their own assumption - xj (65 bytes) 2005-5-12, 22:07:50
• I think you should add a key point here. - Enlighten (395 bytes) 2005-5-12, 19:40:01
  • the difference on the absolute number of heads are sure larger - xj (392 bytes) 2005-5-12, 20:52:00
    • In gambling, the random walk has an absorbing barrier - wasguru (42 bytes) 2005-5-12, 21:06:26
      • I am not sure about mathematics behind that - xj (417 bytes) 2005-5-12, 22:06:09
        • absorbing barrier is when all your money is lost - Enlighten (372 bytes) 2005-5-13, 10:18:08
• The flaw of binomial trial argument is not in the hidden sample size - wasguru (399 bytes) 2005-5-12, 18:54:50
  • yeah, viewing N as an sample size is a little bit over stretch - xj (309 bytes) 2005-5-12, 19:02:27
    • viewing a continuous coin toss as binomial loses a lot of information - wasguru (160 bytes) 2005-5-12, 19:16:25
• When the results are not robust the stats speaks. - cornbug (0 bytes) 2005-5-12, 18:39:06
  • that's your misconception. if results are not robust, stats won't help you - xj (0 bytes) 2005-5-12, 18:51:40
    • Not robust, either No difference or likely significant by stats. - cornbug (0 bytes) 2005-5-12, 22:16:01

加跟贴