Gamblers Fallacy (not what you think)

[bombus]

If I choose to bet 1 unit on red because it has a close to 50% chance of winning, is this bet based on GF?

If black shows and my bet lost then I choose to bet 2 units on red because it has a close to 50% chance of winning is this second bet based on GF?

In the second wager, is the bet on red based on GF or the doubled up stake based on GF?

[darrynf]

you seem to make sence mike

what is AP? is that advantage play ? if so what dose that mean and how do you apply it ?

[bombus]

you seem to make sence mike

what is AP? is that advantage play ? if so what dose that mean and how do you apply it ?

Advantage play is any strategy applied to defeat the gaming device (roulette wheel), and not the game (roulette).

This can be achieved through the use of physics (visual ballistics), and scouting for wheel defects.

I prefer peyote myself, although peyote and a computer might be very affective.
 

[Mike]

If I choose to bet 1 unit on red because it has a close to 50% chance of winning, is this bet based on GF?

No.

If black shows and my bet lost then I choose to bet 2 units on red because it has a close to 50% chance of winning is this second bet based on GF?

No.

In the second wager, is the bet on red based on GF or the doubled up stake based on GF?

The fact that you bet on red doesn't imply GF if you chose it because it has a 50% chance of winning. But why did you increase the bet to 2 units? It doesn't necessarily imply GF because you might have another reason for increasing your stake, such as evidence that the wheel is biased towards red. If you increased the stake because you believe red is more likely to occur BECAUSE it has just lost, then that's GF.

One theory of why so many fall for GF is that they think a short sample of spins should have the same characteristics as a large sample, so knowing that "in the long run" there will be as many blacks as reds, then they assume that this should also be true in the very short term, but it isn't, hence the fallacy.

All experienced players know that "anything can happen in the short term", but also know that in the long run things will even out. In spite of this many still commit the GF, it's an amazingly stubborn belief, and the casinos love it.

[Nathan Detroit]

Re post # 109:

A M E N !!!


N.D.

[Mike]

MIke   here is the link to the Wizard`s forum

nolinks://wizardofvegas.com/forums/

Thanks Nathan. 

I like this:

All betting systems are worthless. However, for the mathematically challenged, here is a forum of your own.

[Zindrod]

If I choose to bet 1 unit on red because it has a close to 50% chance of winning, is this bet based on GF?

If black shows and my bet lost then I choose to bet 2 units on red because it has a close to 50% chance of winning is this second bet based on GF?

In the second wager, is the bet on red based on GF or the doubled up stake based on GF?

Well that is interesting. Disregarding the zero, you are correct that on EC every spin it has a 50% chance of hitting. If you know this and don't base your bet on it then it isn't GF. Simply because you are not basing your bet on probability or past results. So if you just bet Red because you like red and use a progression, that is not GF. But it is also GF to some extend because you are progressing and betting that red will come yet you did not base your bet on past results you are still progressing and thus indirectly waiting for Red that is 'due'.

To Darren.

Dealer signature, visual ballistics and Bias are AP techniques. I would suggest you start buying literature in that regard and start reading. Also try and find any info on VB/bias techniques from all the various forums. There is a lot of info drifting around if you are willing to look for it.

[bombus]

@ Mike,

I increased the bet size for no other reason that on the next spin red has a close to 50% chance of winning and a doubled up stake will give me a 1 unit profit for the 2 bet sequence. Is this GF?

[darrynf]

thanks bombus.

@zindrod

i understand v.b and bias wheels but have no need to learn it as im not close to a casino.

i only wanted to know what ap ment and now i know.

everyone has there beliefes and there is some very valid opinions in here, i for one dont care much about gamblers fallacy as its just a way to play roulette. i have my way and thats all that matters.

[Mike]

But it is also GF to some extend because you are progressing and betting that red will come yet you did not base your bet on past results you are still progressing and thus indirectly waiting for Red that is 'due'.

Yes it was a tricky question, but you shouldn't assume that just because he was progressing then it implies GF. Like I said in an earlier post, it's about the REASON for betting a certain way. Sometimes your reasons may be valid, sometimes not. If it's not valid (ie; it doesn't correspond with reality) then it's a fallacy.

I can't think of a plausible reason why you should increase your bet on red which ISN'T GF, but you can't rule it out.

[Zindrod]

Basically to me the word 'due' means GF

[Zindrod]

thanks bombus.

@zindrod

I understand v.b and bias wheels but have no need to learn it as im not close to a casino.

I only wanted to know what ap ment and now I know.

everyone has there beliefes and there is some very valid opinions in here, I for one dont care much about gamblers fallacy as its just a way to play roulette. I have my way and thats all that matters.

ok.... 

[Mike]

@ Mike,

I increased the bet size for no other reason that on the next spin red has a close to 50% chance of winning and a doubled up stake will give me a 1 unit profit for the 2 bet sequence. Is this GF?

Yes, if "has a close to 50% chance of winning" to you also implies that every other outcome should be red, the last bet wasn't red, therefore the next bet is likely to be red, therefore I will increase my stake to win back my losses.

That train of reasoning DOES entail GF.

[bombus]

I can't think of a plausible reason why you should increase your bet on red which ISN'T GF...

Then it would seem unless you have some knowledge that your bet selection is superior to the reduced house payout for your selected bet, any progressive stake is pure gambler's fallacy?

[Zindrod]

Then it would seem unless you have some knowledge that your bet selection is superior to the reduced house payout for your selected bet, any progressive stake is pure gambler's fallacy?

Would not say that.

If you had a pattern system with ABC rules not related to past outcomes. Let's say I decide to play RBBRRRBRRRBBRRRBBBBR and I'm going to play this pattern whenever I get to the casino doesn't matter what with a 1 up 1 down progression untill I reach say 10 chips on Red or Black I think you'd be cleared from GF.    You see I did not rely on previous results to determine my next bet.

Still whether you can devise a system that's not GF it doesn't matter the house edge will get you anyway. It's not so much that GF will make you loose faster. Over time they all loose pretty much the same. That is why casinos really believe that roulette is a safe game for them. A banker if you like.

[Zindrod]

-