i totally didn't believe this, so i wrote a small script to test it, and 'lo --pic.twitter.com/suTIkc9sH1
-
If you pick HHHT ex ante to compare with, the probability of getting it is the same as HHHH. It’s only if you pick the comparison ex post that the original claim is correct, for the same basic reason that a “garbage hand” in poker is more probable than a straight flush.
Technically, any five-card hand in poker is equally probable, but the equivalence class of “garbage hands” is vastly larger than the equivalence class of straight flushes. Likewise, things that “look like” HHHT—like HTHH or HHTH—are more numerous than HHHH or TTTT.
![∃𝑋[∅∈𝑋∧∀𝑦(𝑦∈𝑋⇒𝑦∪{𝑦}∈𝑋)]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/976278603989168129/5nzgS7j4_normal.jpg)
-
-
Our intuition is drawn to patterns with low information content (entropy): “jack-high straight flush in spades” completely specifies the hand, whereas a garbage hand’s cards have to be individually listed. The less information needed to specify a hand, the less probable it is.
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
This is the correct explanation!
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
This...seems too obvious (if only because I understand it.)
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.