Quote Originally Posted by Iscah View Post
No, that absolutely is gambler's fallacy. You're saying that it is more likely to be tails because the previous two were heads.

If you were asked to bet before any coins are flipped whether there will be three heads or two and a tail, you'd be more sensible to bet on the mix. But once the two heads have been produced, the third flip is still 50/50. The universe does not care that the previous two flips came up heads.

And, as I said, your rhetorical question was ambiguous whether you were expecting the reader to think the answer is "you should bet on tails" or "it's still 50/50". Rhetorical questions don't work if the person you're asking might not follow the same logic as you.


Edit: Okay, no, you wrote that heads was more likely. That makes even less sense.
I literally said that it's 50% for either side. lol You're talking about classical probability in a closed mathematical setting, I'm talking about game theory decision making because my original point was about node spawns: you have two sides at the same chance of occurring, why did you pick one over the other? You have multiple nodes spread throughout the map at the same chance of occurring at fixed intervals of time, why did you preposition near that node specifically?