Is Anything Ever Really Due?

[Spike!]

This is probably in the same vein as gamblers fallacy. I've been noticing when I play that I use 'is it due' far more often than I thought. I look at this and I look at that, and if it looks due, I'll bet it if I don't see anything else to bet. And I'm right probably 65% of the time.

This isn't supposed to happen. We're supposed to avoid this strategy at all costs. There's really no way to tell if its really due or not. I suspect its not because we're dealing with random outcomes. But when you group random outcomes together, you might be dealing with a different phenomonon altogether.

[bombus]

Do you mean group them together, or observe a group of them simultaneously/collectively?

[TwoCatSam]

yeh spike your due to get head knocked off!

I say, Ol' Bean, that was a bit harsh don't you think?

Sam

[Mr J]

If a number has not hit in 450 spins, its DIFFICULT for me NOT to believe its 'due'. If a different number has not hit in 15 spins, I do not believe its 'due'. I dont treat 450 spins the same as 15 spins BUT...I'm suppose to.  Ken

[Herb6]

1. After the dealer spins the ball, does he block the number that has just hit from hitting again?

Answer: No.

2. Do 38 pockets remain on the wheel after a number hits?

Answer: Yes

Therefore the chance that a number will hit remains 1/38 and numbers can not become "due" to hit.

[Bayes]

Casinos love those marquees. Las Vegas and Monte Carlo were built on the gambler's fallacy and the "hot hand" fallacy.

And I'm right probably 65% of the time.

So you're saying the gambler's fallacy is a fallacy?

The thing is, you're always looking at past spins from a limited perspective. Results will conform to the distribution in the long term but your "snapshot" is an infinitesimal proportion of it which you can't hope to capitalise on.

[Bayes]

Psychology behind the fallacy

Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman proposed that the gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias produced by a psychological heuristic called the representativeness heuristic.[4][5] According to this view, "after observing a long run of red on the roulette wheel, for example, most people erroneously believe that black will result in a more representative sequence than the occurrence of an additional red",[6] so people expect that a short run of random outcomes should share properties of a longer run, specifically in that deviations from average should balance out. When people are asked to make up a random-looking sequence of coin tosses, they tend to make sequences where the proportion of heads to tails stays close to 0.5 in any short segment more so than would be predicted by chance;[7] Kahneman and Tversky interpret this to mean that people believe short sequences of random events should be representative of longer ones.[8] The representativeness heuristic is also cited behind the related phenomenon of the clustering illusion, according to which people see streaks of random events as being non-random when such streaks are actually much more likely to occur in small samples than people expect.[9]

It's amazing how stubbornly people cling to this belief, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

[Mr J]

"After the dealer spins the ball, does he block the number that has just hit from hitting again?" >>> What in Gods name does that have to do with anything? The same number can hit back to back, I dont think anyone here would disagree.  Ken

[Herb6]

Fender1000,

Go to dictionary.com and type in the word, LOGIC.

Best of Luck,

Herb

[Spike!]

So you're saying the gambler's fallacy is a fallacy?>>>

As a blanket rule, it works fine. As a specific rule, appllied to every outcome every time, its full of holes big enough to drive a truck thru.

[Spike!]

>>Results will conform to the distribution in the long term but your "snapshot" is an infinitesimal proportion of it which you can't hope to capitalise on.>>

The brush you paint with is much too broad. You're looking at it thru the big end of the telescope, you need to turn the telescope around and examine it close up.

[Herb6]

Listen I respect Einstein BUT he was wrong about roulette simples. - Fender1000

Ok, then prove it.  Show us the math

[Noble Savage]

You speak of hit-rate as if it is a new concept that we don't understand and our math can't calculate.

[Spike!]

Hey presto you get just that. >>>

Presto, Herb. Get it? Presto defeats math every time. These are new times, Herb, get out of your Model T and get with it.  

[Spike!]

YOUR MATH.>>>>

Fenders math is like the famous Invisable Math, Hidden Math, and Out of the Box Math. Its there, you just can't pin it down or understand it or even see it. Just believe in it is all you can do.

[Spike!]

-