King Boonen said:

I'm sorry but you again are wrong. Odds refer to a finite situation, but the coin toss isn't, I do understand the difference.

Perhaps the correct word is chance instead of odds. English isn't my native tongue.

A "fair coin toss" has an outocme undetermined by prior result. I said so many times.

Also you seem to think that the probability must equal the physical outcome, this is wrong. I can have a fair coin and toss it 1000 times and get heads every time. Doesn't mean it isn't fair. The probability of it ever happening is tiny but it can still happen.

I said a similar thing. But here we need to go back to the real question: we have an experiment with outcome A and outcome B. We run it 101 times. aafter 100 times we have only B. What is the logical estimate for 101?

And where have odds come into this? We are discussing probability.

is the word chances?

As to the second part of your post, if I toss a fair coin once I'm guaranteed a "100%" score in 100% of the tries. Is that once in a googolplex? Or maybe you should define your own terms rather than inferring others?

Every outcome of a 100 tosses is indeed rare.

But if we say: out of a 100 tosses we get 60 A, 40 B, the order in which they are tossed is unimportant. In a 100 A and then the next tosses are 100 B every toss is set.

Sorry, I did not infer extra info, you did. The burden of proof is not on me.

No, you can't, again, this is about the maths NOT TOSSING AN ACTUAL COIN.

Okay.. King Boone, go to the post of von Mises and show me where he is talking about math? He is very clearly talking about a coin toss. You are the only one who tries to diminish it to a hypothetical perfect situation.

No. Nonsense. I do not have to point out stuff he did not say! Instead, point out the conditions you infer to or admit that indeed no conditions were given.

Again, the discussion is about the maths, not an actual coin toss. The maths dictate there is a 50/50 chance of heads or tails on the next toss.

In a perfect situation yes. But this is a coin toss performed in front of your eyes. You must give the next outcome. There were 100 tosses, all were B. Would you still say chances are 50%? Would you bet your money on A?

Nope, I have a bachelors degree, a masters degree and a Ph.D. 100 coin tosses is a tiny sample size, particularly when it is so easily repeatable.

Simply nonsense. 100 outcomes on a 101 population is extremely accurate.

You claim the answer is heads, and in a discussion about probability you didn't even place a probability on it, therefore one can only assume you think it is a fact the next coin toss will result in a head.

I claim the answer on von Mises example is heads. You are going back to this perfect mathematical excercise which von Mises did not put forward.

Os this correct? Are you failing to define terms again? Again, you don't have to say a word to mean it. you didn't say it's likely to be heads or it's almost certainly going to be heads. You said it will be heads, a statement of fact. The only logical conclusion is you you believe the first 100 tosses proved that the next toss would be the same.

Yes, that is indeed the logical conclusion

Now you can shake your head about this, but you fail to see the flaw in von Mises example due to your abstracting it to a perfect mathematical problem.

You mean like saying the coin isn't fair?

Dear King Boonen. Who said the coin wasn't pure/fair? ME> Did I claim anyone else said it? Nope. So are you suggesting I put words in my own mouth?

Because you don't seem to grasp the difference between theoretical probability and experiment results.

No, I think you got this completely backwards. You are the only one talking about a perfect mathematical result. From the first post I pointed out the theortical answer (see

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1261936&postcount=2125). I certainly know what you and von Mises tried to infer.

But what he said was:

*If I flip a coin 100 times and get heads 100 times, what´s the probability to get head the 101 time?*
No more, no less. My answer is that the obvious answer is HEADS. And sure, throw in my face that this is a "statement of fact" *shrug*

I have explained many times over and over again that this is a result of both logic and probability.

Even von Mises admitted that if this was performed before his eyes he would not bet on tails... and thus he managed to prove the point.