Yet Another Form of Gamblers Fallacy!

[Spike!]

Here's one I just came across, never read it before:

{Gambler's Fallacy - the player is more likely to lose following a win, and more likely win following a loss.}

Is there no end to this? Everything in gambling falls under somebodys dumbass idea of what GF means. What it comes down to is, it means anything you want it to, therefore it has no meaning at all.

[Steve]

Focus on the word "Fallacy" is basically "misconception". Put "Gambler's" in front of it, and you get GAMBLER'S FALLACY. I dont understand the debate about this - it's a simple thing. The most common fallacy about roulette is something like red has a greater chance of spinning next after say 10 blacks.

[Spike!]

Focus on the word "Fallacy" is basically "misconception". Put "Gambler's" in front of it, and you get GAMBLER'S FALLACY. I dont understand the debate about this - it's a simple thing. The most common fallacy about roulette is something like red has a greater chance of spinning next after say 10 blacks.

The point I'm making is, there isn't just one GF, there are lots of them. Like everything else in gambling, you can't nail it down, its open to interpretation. Goofy GF's, wishy washy math, improbable probability, and everybody is an expert. No wonder you can get away with murder and everybody thinks you're crazy. 

[Bayes]

Like everything else in gambling, you can't nail it down, its open to interpretation.

Except 'educated guessing', of course. That's crystal clear - no fuzziness there! 

{Gambler's Fallacy - the player is more likely to lose following a win, and more likely win following a loss.}

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Where did you get that from? It has nothing to do with GF, but it's true if the game has longer losing streaks than winning streaks.

[bombus]

I always thought the gamblers fallacy term was originally aimed directly at the martingale progression.

[Spike!]

Except 'educated guessing', of course. That's crystal clear

By its very nature EG is not exact, how could it be. It fits right in with the slipshod, cobbled together, loose fitting rules to live by in gambling..

[Spike!]

I always thought the gamblers fallacy term was originally aimed directly at the martingale progression.

I've seen it applied there as well. It must be obvious by now that GF is a catch all meaningless term used to describe whatever you like in gambling. I'm sure I'll find many other ways its been used if I just keep looking. Put all those people in one room and they will argue till sundown over who's right. In a way Herb is right to make the comment 'its gamblers fallacy' in almost every post, it covers everything like a blanket.

You can honestly say that me bringing this up is just another form of GF. 

[Bayes]

Whatever staking plan you use is irrelevant to the gambler's fallacy, which is a logical error (the gambler is being inconsistent).

The fallacious gambler takes the following steps in his thinking:

1. I think this is a fair roulette wheel.
2. I have just seen 10 blacks in a row.
3. Since the wheel is fair, black and red come up equally often.

Therefore:

4. red has to come up pretty soon.
5. I'd better start betting red.
6. Maybe red won't come up in the next spin, but a lot of reds have to come up soon.

A 'fair' wheel means two things: there is no bias, and spins are independent (whatever has occurred makes it no more or less likely that anything else will occur).

The gambler's fallacy doesn't involve bias, only independence. The inconsistency comes from the fact that his premises are:

• The setup is fair.
• There have been 10 blacks in a row.

From that he concludes that some reds must turn up soon. But this would only be true if outcomes were not independent, which is inconsistent with the first premise.

In fact, it can be shown that in a negative expectation game, bold (aggressive) staking is best, timid staking is worst. If you have a positive expectation the best staking plan is a form of % staking (like the kelly criterion). But if you have more losses than wins (as in roulette even chances), you're better off raising stakes after losses, not wins (because the winning streaks are shorter than the losing streaks).

[Spike!]

5. I'd better start betting red.
6. Maybe red won't come up in the next spin, but a lot of reds have to come up soon.>>

Thats certainly a popular version, but its just a version. There are at least half a dozen and they all differ. Like everything else in gambling, nobody really knows whats going on, they just think they do..

[Bayes]

Thats certainly a popular version, but its just a version. There are at least half a dozen and they all differ.

What other versions are there? the 'version' you posted in the first post isn't GF at all, in fact it's the truth for roulette ECs.

[mistarlupo]

Basically any belief that you can beat a random game with negative expectation is a fallacy, or gambler's fallacy, or whatever fallacy you call it.

I think you dedicate too much attention to these terms & definitions, Spike.

[Spike!]

Basically any belief that you can beat a random game with negative expectation is a fallacy, or gambler's fallacy, or whatever fallacy you call it.

I think you dedicate too much attention to these terms & definitions, Spike.

Exactly! Any belief about the game that you can win seems to be Gamblers Fallacy! That makes the term devoid of any real meaning. And its not ME thats obsessed with terms, its all the 'experts' who always try and put me in my place with meaningless terms like GF. If everything is GF, then nothing is..

[Bayes]

Basically any belief that you can beat a random game with negative expectation is a fallacy, or gambler's fallacy,

This just isn't true. The gambler's fallacy is very specific, and it's about independence. I can't really explain it any more clearly than I have.

There are lots of other ways you can tackle roulette without committing the gambler's fallacy, and I'm not just talking about AP.

[Spike!]

This just isn't true. The gambler's fallacy is very specific, and it's about independence. I can't really explain it any more clearly than I have.

There are lots of other ways you can tackle roulette without committing the gambler's fallacy, and I'm not just talking about AP.

LOL!!  You're making my point perfectly! Nobody can agree on what GF is, so its meaningless. I read the most well written article on gambling and the guy will have an off the wall GF. And you people love to tell ME I'm full of it..

[Bayes]

What the hell are you talking about? It's not a question of people agreeing what it is. There is one definition of the gambler's fallacy, I can't help it if people don't understand it.

Still waiting for those 'other versions'...  

You see, this is where you demonstrate your ignorance. You think it's a matter of the 'experts' making up some rule which is totally arbitrary and if they don't all agree on it then it must be false or meaningless.

Some people still believe the earth is flat. Because not everyone agrees that it isn't does that make the geometry of the earth 'meaningless'? according to you it does. 

[Bayes]

-