[Trikkur]

So I've been thinking about this whole gambler's fallacy argument and it's actually kind of weird to think about. Let's say we decide to flip a coin X times. Well the highest probability out comes is that from 0 to X, the coin will come up an even amount of heads and tails. Yet if we look at point Y which is between 0 and X and see that at that particular time there has been 10 more heads than tails, we are somehow going to always be 10 behind. But we weren't ever actually looking at point Y until after we completed the flips, so that statistic is irrelevant. So honestly, you will see streaks of heads, but you will also see streaks of tails. People can't really analyze that data at point Y because its honestly not relevant.

It's almost a support for the gambler's fallacy, but probably not how people actually use it. Yes if you are measure from point 0 to point X, you should get close to evening out and yes there will be large streaks of one or another, but that information is actually irrelevant to the "experiment" and we've already decided that from 0 to X it should be even.

I'm not sure if I explained this properly, but it's kind of bugging me.