The explanation of that is probably outside the scope of a comment on this page, but as an example of a counterintuitive outcome that can be proven rigorously by probability theory- if you have a 50/50 chance of a boy or a girl and have 4 kids, what's the most likely outcome? 3 of one sex and 1 of the other.

If Hillz has a 67% chance of winning, get a 12 sided die (dodecahedron) and roll it once. If it lands on anything other than 1-4, she wins. Single event. If you did it fifty million times, you'd expect her to win 67% of the time.

If you flip a fair coin 99 times and get 99 heads, what's the odds the 100th flip will be heads? 50/50. Probability only speaks to stuff in the future.

An electron in a pz orbital has zero probability of being found in the xy plane. You will _never_ find it in the xy plane. How does it get from one side to the other? This is in fact a trick question. If you know the electron's location, the wavefunction has collapsed- the wave function only applies to future events or observations.

Probability theory is way cool, and I had the BEST teacher in my life for a class on it. RIP, Mr. Schnure.

Your first example illustrates that you need to ask the question precisely. 2G/2B is more likely than either 3G/1B or 1G/3B, but 2/2 is less likely than 3/1. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go tell Monty Hall to open door 3 so we can find out if Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are dead or alive.

I knew there was a finite probability of someone pointing that out. Well done, sir!>

Paddypower is currently offering 4/11 on Clinton, 11/5 on Trump. Bookies make their living out of having a better idea of the probability of a one-off event than the average punter.

You know, that's a better way to look at the outcomes than speaking about this event. These so-called "probabilities" are more akin to where a bookie would set his odds to make the most money from those who bet on Hillz or tRump.

538 has Clinton with a 69.2% chance of winning.

|PEC has Clinton 346 Trump 192|

Now this is a|choropleth| you can get behind!

<img src="http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/ClintonTrump07Aug16-07Sep16pmap.gif">

Hate to harp on this, but probabilistic predictions of individual, unique events are…what's the word? Oh yeah: worthless.

SO YOU'RE SAYING HARAMBE HAS A CHANCE

you can talk about it if it's a future event

Hope you can 'splain that to me. It would make sense if we had 100 elections and Hillz won 67% of them, but that can't be, obvs.

The explanation of that is probably outside the scope of a comment on this page, but as an example of a counterintuitive outcome that can be proven rigorously by probability theory- if you have a 50/50 chance of a boy or a girl and have 4 kids, what's the most likely outcome? 3 of one sex and 1 of the other.

If Hillz has a 67% chance of winning, get a 12 sided die (dodecahedron) and roll it once. If it lands on anything other than 1-4, she wins. Single event. If you did it fifty million times, you'd expect her to win 67% of the time.

If you flip a fair coin 99 times and get 99 heads, what's the odds the 100th flip will be heads? 50/50. Probability only speaks to stuff in the future.

An electron in a pz orbital has zero probability of being found in the xy plane. You will _never_ find it in the xy plane. How does it get from one side to the other? This is in fact a trick question. If you know the electron's location, the wavefunction has collapsed- the wave function only applies to future events or observations.

Probability theory is way cool, and I had the BEST teacher in my life for a class on it. RIP, Mr. Schnure.

Your first example illustrates that you need to ask the question precisely. 2G/2B is more likely than either 3G/1B or 1G/3B, but 2/2 is less likely than 3/1. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go tell Monty Hall to open door 3 so we can find out if Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are dead or alive.

I knew there was a finite probability of someone pointing that out. Well done, sir!>

Paddypower is currently offering 4/11 on Clinton, 11/5 on Trump. Bookies make their living out of having a better idea of the probability of a one-off event than the average punter.

You know, that's a better way to look at the outcomes than speaking about this event. These so-called "probabilities" are more akin to where a bookie would set his odds to make the most money from those who bet on Hillz or tRump.

I prefer these predictions just for my mental comfort.

It ain't over 'til it's over, but I like Hillz' chances more than The Cubs.

White House Watch: Clinton 43%, Trump 39%, Johnson 9%, Stein 2% http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/po…

I like their mode of picking the mean.

Wow, if Doc Stein can't campaign in ND, she might not carry the state!