Detecting a Biased Coin From Few Flips
Why a small number of coin flips gives surprisingly weak evidence of bias, worked out with exact binomial probabilities, the interview question that tests whether you understand statistical power, not just probability.
Question. You flip a coin 10 times and get 7 heads. Is the coin biased? Most people's gut reaction is "70% heads, sounds biased", but the honest answer, worked out properly, is that 10 flips give you almost no ability to distinguish a fair coin from a moderately biased one. This question is really testing whether you understand statistical power: how much evidence a given sample size can actually provide, separate from whether the observed number "looks" unusual.
Setting it up: what would a fair coin do?
If the coin is fair, the number of heads in 10 flips follows a Binomial(10, 0.5) distribution. The probability of getting exactly 7 heads is
That alone isn't damning, plenty of individually-unlikely outcomes happen routinely (every specific sequence of 10 flips has probability ). What matters for "is this evidence of bias" is the probability of getting a result at least this extreme, in either direction, under the fair-coin assumption.
Worked example: computing the two-sided p-value
Computing: , , , , summing to 176, so , and the two-sided figure is about . A result this extreme (or more) happens roughly one time in three just from a perfectly fair coin, far too common to count as meaningful evidence of bias by any conventional standard (typically you'd want this probability below 5% before calling it suspicious).
How many flips would actually settle it?
To reliably detect, say, a coin biased at 60% heads instead of 50%, you need enough flips that the sampling distributions under the two hypotheses barely overlap. Roughly, distinguishing a coin from a coin with reasonable confidence needs on the order of a few hundred flips, not ten, the gap between the two hypotheses (0.1 in probability) is small relative to the natural flip-to-flip noise, and that noise only shrinks proportional to . Going from 10 flips to 1,000 flips only cuts your uncertainty band by a factor of 10, not 100, noise shrinks slowly.
Drag up in the explorer above and watch how the binomial distribution's spread narrows relative to its center, at the distribution is wide enough that 7 heads sits well within normal fair-coin variation; only at much larger does a 70%-heads outcome become genuinely surprising under a fair-coin hypothesis.
Whether an observed count is "surprising" depends on the full sampling distribution under the null hypothesis, not on how the raw percentage looks. Ten flips give weak evidence: even 7-of-10 heads has roughly a 1-in-3 chance of occurring from a perfectly fair coin. Distinguishing modest bias reliably requires hundreds of flips, because sampling noise shrinks only as .
The trap is anchoring on the observed proportion (70% heads feels far from 50%) rather than on how much sampling noise a small actually produces. Small samples are noisy by nature, and treating a noisy small-sample result as strong evidence, in coin flips or in evaluating a trading strategy's first 10 trades, is one of the most common statistical errors in both interviews and practice.
Discussion
💡 Discussion rules
- Ask and answer about this concept. Off-topic gets removed.
- No homework dumps. Show what you tried first.
- Corrections are welcome. Cite a source when you claim an error.
Loading discussion…
Related concepts
Practice in interviews
Further reading
- Wasserman, All of Statistics, ch. 10