Gambler's Fallacy, The Zone and The StuPiD Gene.

[Herb6]

Why do people fall prey to systems based on the gambler's fallacy like "The Zone"?

To help everyone gain insight into the problem, here's some information that you might find interesting.

Scientific expertise can provoke a backlash: Participants in a University of Maryland experiment were more likely to express belief in ESP if they were told that most scientists thought it was bunk. - Source is Scientific American.
This experminet helps explain why people fall prey to absurd systems like The Zone and The Enigimista Cult. rather than simply believing an encyclopedia.  When someone knowledgeable explains why a system won't work, it triggers the activation of a stupid gene in certain people that bascially tells the person to say, "Nuh-uh!"

[Spike!]

Why do people fall prey to systems based on the gambler's fallacy like "The Zone"?>>

Because they're ignorant of how the game works and they're greedy. Don't read anything more into it than that.

>>rather than simply believing an encyclopedia.>>

If its about roulette and its in an encyclopedia, its true. Just ask MathPeeps.

[Mr J]

As many times as people rip on gamblers fallacy is the same number of times I'll respond. That way, 'they' won't feel they have the run of the place. We have discussed MANY times, the DEFINITION of gamblers fallacy, there are MORE than one. Steve for example has said: If I bet $1 on red and lose, lets say my next and LAST bet is $2 on red....he says, that is gamblers fallacy (agenda?). Do I agree with him?

No but again, different definitions.  I have posted MANY times, I have changed my view over the years regarding ONE definition. If the number 16 has not hit in 350 spins, it does not mean it'll hit 'soon'. I have no issue with that. To say that past numbers have NO place for methods....one would have to be BROKE.  Ken

[Spike!]

Gamblers Fallacy is big blanket that tries to cover everything. It fails.

[Mr J]

"Gamblers Fallacy is big blanket that tries to cover everything" >>> Again, different definitions. I dont need it to cover everything, nor does it, nor should it. On most boards, if you win somewhat long term (another definition) and you dont claim your play is AP (cough) then you MUST be interested in gamblers fallacy. Its a double edge sword and always will be. Losers HATE winners, thats a **FACT**.  Ken

[Noble Savage]

the DEFINITION of gamblers fallacy, there are MORE than one.

You (and Spike) are (deliberately/politically) complicating a simple notion. Gambler's fallacy is any fallacy on which a gambler bases his bets on.

It's usually the belief that something is "due" in a random game just because it has showed in x number of trials. But there certainly different forms of it.

In a nutshell, it's betting on a number/group of numbers and thinking it somehow is special (I.e. has higher chance of appearing), for reasons such as its being "due" because it has been "sleeping" for a while, or its being currently "hot"/"active"/"trendy", or its being the result of some super-educated (yet can't grasp basic probability) guess that is based on merely looking at past random-noise that has already happened, or its being based on the teachings of some self-proclaimed Italian pseudo-scientist who uses past random numbers that have already appeared in some sort of mystic calculations that will reveal the future, etc.

If the number 16 has not hit in 350 spins, it does not mean it'll hit 'soon'.

Yes, I don't see the casino closing a wheel for maintenance (or to spin the wheel for a little while without taking bets) just because some number went 350 spins with no hits and it now has an advantage.

[Mr J]

"You're (deliberately) complicating a simple notion" >>> 100% correct, I am.  Ken

[Mr J]

I quoted you before you changed it. Where did I use the word 'due' for a method? Ken

[Noble Savage]

I quoted you before you changed it.

I just saw Spike's post, had to address him too. Me being his moderator and all...

Where did I use the word 'due' for a method?

You don't have to use it for "gambler's fallacy" to apply to you. The concept of betting on something that is "due" is clearly implied in all of your bet-selections.

[Mr J]

"The concept of betting on something that is "due" is clearly implied in all of your bet-selections" >>> In all of MINE or anyone who uses a method?  Ken

[Spike!]

You (and Spike) are (deliberately/politically) complicating a simple notion.>>>

Its more of a 'simpletons' notion I think. If you catch my drift..

[Mr J]

I'll make something up. I repeat, its only an example. Lets say someone uses only flat betting, 00 wheel. When a number hits, cross it off. We'll say the 12 hit. Bet on the 2 neighbors, 29 and 8. A 5 hits. Now switch our 2 bets to the 22 and 17 etc. When we get to minus 36 (18 bets) we stop and start over. I am NOT saying the 29, 8, 22 and 17 are DUE. So is that gamblers fallacy, in your opinion?  Ken

[Noble Savage]

In all of mine or anyone who uses a method?  Ken

"A method" is too generic.

"A method that is based on fallacy", is more like it.

[Herb6]

Ken,

Yes, you are indeed one of the poster children for The Gambler's Fallacy

For reasons which you already know.  

-Herb6

[Mr J]

Sooo, with that logic, not all methods use gamblers fallacy? And the ones that do, that all depends on the definition.  Ken

[Mr J]

-