One Man's Meat,another Man's Poison..

[GARNabby]

He analyzes the most delay in events like "How many times dozen X shows and doesn't repeat" and so on (pure gamblers' fallacy) and he has been winning by adding more steps (or waiting) the longer the skips.

He has been betting considering all his spins for some years now. For one of his approaches he uses a 10-step single-dozen progression and waits for his signal -I.e. dozen 1 has the most shows without repeating (to form a series of 2+) at 14 at his samples, he would then wait 5 times for this event not to happen and then enters each time the dozen shows, betting on it to appear again, covering zero. I've seen him go to the bold extremes of his progression plenty of times. When something goes beyond his progression, he adds more wait, if he waited for 5 times without the event showing, he would wait for 6 times now and so on.

Perhaps the "gambler's fallacy" is no more an absolute concept than any other?

Also i have claimed for some time that there are small yields of utility and theory over the longer-run random "streams"... but only sofaras the variance of the "reasonably-expected" mean (graph of the outcomes); not of the higher-order variances occurring before that.

And there's no harm in tightening the betting-requirements at the higher levels... where that is possible over the short-run.

[GARNabby]

-