Recall the quoted passage:
> “If numbers 1, 2, and 3 won the last 3 rounds, [I could determine] what was most likely to win the next 3.”
That is unambiguously claiming not just a contingent bias, but a bias contingent on the previous three rounds. My math was based on a one-round contingent bias. That is already in the realm of extremely unlikely. Three-rounds is just flat-out impossible.
I don't think it's unambiguous. I think the parent's interpretation is also quite possible (even probable, given your point that the contingent interpretation is impossible).
Would a bias contingent on the previous 3 be considered Markovian in this case?
Re:A professor who beat roulette
by Nullabillity on Sunday February 27, 2022 @01:30PM
(#30491041)
> That is unambiguously claiming not just a contingent bias, but a bias contingent on the previous three rounds.
No it isn't, only that three rounds may be enough to predict the bias. Whether the bias actually depends on previous results is irrelevant to the quote.
Edit: I can also see how this framing might have been important to funding ongoing research, ie, perhaps you are right that there was some degree of unethical framing here.