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

[Mr J]

Is THIS gamblers fallacy? >>> Steve H. 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.

[Herb6]

Ken,

Everyone but you seems to grasp what is and what is not Gambler's Fallacy.

[Mr J]

Are you gonna answer my above question Snowman? "Yes, you are indeed one of the poster children for The Gambler's Fallacy" >>> Depends on your definition coolbreeze. At least I dont HIDE behind, "I use AP, and you cant prove I'm wrong".  I dont play the 'hiding game'.    Ken

[Mr J]

Sales must be slow. 

[gizmotron]

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.

You are not qualified to moderate me. You can't stop with your misconception that something is due. When have I ever said that a trend is due and that it will continue in the same direction because it is due. The only thing that is due is your asinine perspective. You never stop with your crazy misconceptions and perspectives that are almost the rantings of an unintelligent drone.

Now try to listen. Coincidence is not caused or limited by math. It does not care what statistics or probability mandates. Coincidence has no memory. Coincidence is an independent circumstance. Past coincidences have no effect on future spins. You wouldn't know a circumstantial coincidence if it came up and bit you.

Now I expect you to moderate that. That's your crusade right? You are going to save the world from people that have an advantage but won't show you with baby food, diapers, and bottle to feed you when you crybaby your mouth off. You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.

[Herb6]

Gizmotron,

Sorry, but you too are one of the poster children.

[Noble Savage]

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

Yes, because, while you might not call it "fallacy", it still is. The reason being the lack of reason as to why it should work, i.e. why you should get a better performance (be it in terms of hit frequency, variance/deviation, or both) of the bet selection.

I don't see why the wheel/ball should follow the rules/rhythm imposed by that bet-selection. Therefore I do not see why it should perform better than any bet-selection, or lack thereof.

We feel safer imposing such 1+1=2 systems on chaos, even though, in objective reality, they make no difference.

Our best chance, as I see it, for a better-than-expectancy performance of a bet selection is to find and exploit slight non-randomness using advanced methods. No easy task for sure.

[Mr J]

Thanks for answering. Like I said, I only made that method up in like 30 seconds. What about your buddies definition, Steve?  My POINT on THIS board is......its funny how EVERYTHING is gamblers fallacy UNLESS I purchase something.    Ken

[Noble Savage]

You are not qualified to moderate me.

(bla bla bla...)

You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.

I like you too Gizmo.

[gizmotron]

Gizmotron,

Sorry, but you too are one of the poster children.

Herb, you were once a somebody with influence. You are now just a bitter old has been. You have no idea how to explain what I know. So you make up a lame excuse to explain it. You are nothing but a sorry seller of sophistry. Your childish names are nothing but amusements for your obnoxious imitation of life. You understand nothing but never stop attempting to impress passers by. Well you can have the suckers that believe you. What a great achievement. You are the master of your own cult of personality.

[Mr J]

"Yes, because, while you might not call it "fallacy", it still is. The reason being the lack of reason as to why it should work, I.e. why you should get a better performance" >>> Ok but AGAIN, those 4 numbers are NOT 'due'. So, there ARE more than one definition to gamblers fallacy. Your statement in quotes and 'due' are TWO. Not to mention, I'm very certain there are more views of gamblers fallacy out there. Probably close to a dozen. Ken

[Spike!]

Every bet I make violates some form of gamblers fallacy.

One mans Gambles Fallacy is the winning mans belly laugh.. 

[Noble Savage]

My POINT on THIS board is......its funny how EVERYTHING is gamblers fallacy UNLESS I purchase something.    Ken

lol I can understand that.

I personally am completely against buying gambling systems, and I dislike roulette computers. (like Kelly does)

If someone wants to learn about roulette physics, here (in my opinion) are the 3 best resources:

- Spin videos (on different conditions), video software (preferably that allows slow motion), and many hours of analyzing spins.

- Visiting casinos and observing/testing different wheels on real conditions.

- Talking to real experienced players.

[gizmotron]

Noble Sadistic:

You are not qualified to moderate me.

(bla bla bla...)

You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.

You are not qualified to moderate me.

(bla bla bla...)

You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.

You are not qualified to moderate me.

(bla bla bla...)

You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.

You are not qualified to moderate me.

(bla bla bla...)

You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.

You are not qualified to moderate me.

(bla bla bla...)

You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.

[Mr J]

"some form" >>> Thats my exact point. If you dont use AP (cough and sales), whether you won or lost for the day, you used gamblers fallacy. Its stupid to think like that but its more about the 'agenda'. I see it but the rookies here for the first time are not too sure.....should they get the credit card ready or not now, keep reading more posts/threads?  Ken

[Mr J]

-