
metadata
This was awesome what happened a few min ago, I mean what are the odds of this, after 200 other times I did this, it never started off in the room I wanted.


metadata
![](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3gzxnu8XZ1r4xouyo1_250.gif)


metadata


metadata
Well the chances are actually pretty good if it never did it for you before, since I’d imagine that once you reach a certain point that it’d become more likely that you wouldn’t get put in the wrong room a certain number of times in a row. I counted 107 English rooms on the site (might have miscounted, but the math is roughly the same regardless), and if there’s an equal chance of each being randomly selected when a guest joins (I know there’s not, but over a large number of trials it should roughly even out), then there’re 106 rooms that you can be put into that aren’t what you want, so for it to not put you into the room you want 200 times in a row would mean the chances are (106/107)200\*100, or roughly 15.29%, so the chances that you would be put into your desired room at this point are 84.71%, so it’s actually quite likely that you would have been put into the room you wanted at this point.


metadata
wow filthy stalker stalking people in rooms by being a guest


metadata
> *Originally posted by **[Rolby](/forums/1/topics/374280?page=1#posts7663553):***
>
> wow filthy stalker stalking people in rooms by being a guest
Everyone does this.


metadata
I’m glad you took the time to ask everyone if they did this. I don’t do this, though.


metadata
That awkward moment when you go on guest and you want to watch a certain room, and when you log on Kong, it actually starts you off in a different room, :(.


metadata
> *Originally posted by **[LakeSnow](/forums/1/topics/374280?page=1#posts7664050):***
> > *Originally posted by **[Rolby](/forums/1/topics/374280?page=1#posts7663553):***
> >
> > wow filthy stalker stalking people in rooms by being a guest
>
> Everyone does this.
I think you’re probably the only person that does that.


metadata
> *Originally posted by **[123aaa789](/forums/1/topics/374280?page=1#posts7663475):***
> Well the chances are actually pretty good if it never did it for you before
The [Gambler’s Fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy) :P


metadata
> *Originally posted by **[saybox](/forums/1/topics/374280?page=1#posts7679539):***
> > *Originally posted by **[123aaa789](/forums/1/topics/374280?page=1#posts7663475):***
> > Well the chances are actually pretty good if it never did it for you before
>
> The [Gambler’s Fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy) :P
Not quite, I based my assumptions off of the math that statistically it is more likely that it will happen if it hadn’t already within that reference frame, while that fallacy is more about the inverse (that something won’t happen if it already has). The two are essentially the same thing, but the math does state that the chances of something that can happen with equal likelihood as other events not happening with statistically likely frequency, then it’s not as unlikely that it would end up happening soon after (I didn’t say it was a guarantee that it’d happen, that’s never the case, but rather that the fact that it did happen at this time is statistically not very unlikely). And that fallacy did bring up flipping coins, to which it can always be said that of course the future outcome is unknown, but if you want to, let’s say, [flip ten heads in a row](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwvIGNXY21Y), chances are more likely that it’ll happen after a large number of trials versus a small number of trials (just like randomly getting put into the room you want, over the 200+ trials it did eventually do so, whereas it’s not very likely to happen with a smaller set of trials). Do previous trials have any affect on the current or future ones? No, however when taken as a whole set of trials it’s different than the probabilities for the individual trials.
* * *
EDIT @below: Yes, it’s perception of the wording then, since I’m saying that if it’s a trial of 200+ tries, chances are pretty good that it would occur by this point.


metadata
I think the problem is the way you’re wording it. You say “the chances are actually pretty good if it never did it for you before”, when in fact whether or not it ever happened before has nothing to do with whether or not it happens this time. Similarly, when you say “if you want to, let’s say, flip ten heads in a row, chances are more likely that it’ll happen after a large number of trials versus a small number of trials”, whether you get ten heads in a row has nothing to do with how many times the coin has been flipped already.
If you flip a coin ten times, odds are you won’t get 10 heads in a row. If you flip a coin 1000 times, odds are you will get 10 heads in a row (I think). But it’s just as likely to happen on the first 10 flips as the last 10.


metadata
Yeah, your wording was the problem. It implied that the chance of randomly joining the right room increased with every time he joined the wrong one, which isn’t the case. Once he’s tried to join rooms 199 times, and gotten the wrong room, the chance that he joins / joined the right room on his 200th try is still 1/107.
What your maths is for, and I guess what you meant to say, was the probability that in all the tries he had _in total_, he joined the correct room once. Like you said, the probability for the set as a whole (~84%) is different to the individual event, and after 199 attempts, attempt 200 was still 1/107, rather than 84%.
PS: I would like to make Math Naziing a thing. Grammar Naziing is outdated now.
