Probability of Sharpshooter Missing After 3 Shots

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
Tomp
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Question
An expert sharpshooter misses a target 10 percent of the time.

I have a question
"What is the probability that the fi rst miss comes after the 3rd shot?"

Is this as simple as 0.9^3 * 0.1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Look at the sample space :

{ HHHM, HHHHM,...}
 
Last edited:
Yep, the key word is "after".
 
The question is "does 'after'" mean "immediately after" or would five hits and then a miss be "the first miss is after the first three shots".

If you mean the first, then, yes, (.9)^3(.01) is correct.

If the second, then you need to expand that to larger numbers of initial hits:
(.9)^3(.01)+ (.9)^4(.01)+ (.9)^5(.01)+...

You might recognize that as part of a geometric sequence and so find a simple formula for sum.
 
HallsofIvy said:
The question is "does 'after'" mean "immediately after" or would five hits and then a miss be "the first miss is after the first three shots".

If you mean the first, then, yes, (.9)^3(.01) is correct.

If the second, then you need to expand that to larger numbers of initial hits:
(.9)^3(.01)+ (.9)^4(.01)+ (.9)^5(.01)+...

You might recognize that as part of a geometric sequence and so find a simple formula for sum.

Not 0.01 but 0.1 in all cases.:)

It is interesting to check, if we consider the 'after case' (not immediately after) then the asked event is nothing but "3 hits in first 3 shots" (whatever happens later does not matter). Therefore the answer will be (0.9)^3.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top