Gamblers Fallacy (not what you think)

[MauiSunset]

In Black Jack we don't use Junk Science and Junk Math - we just use old fashioned statistics.

Coming over to the Roulette world requires you to wear garlic around your neck, throw out the math and statistics I was taught in college as an engineer, and believe in supernatural forces.

You can't build any kind of Roulette system based on Vampire/Werewolf/UFO technology - it just won't work folks.

The folks who practice this stuff act a witchdoctors and want to control the technology that they concoct in their minds......

[darrynf]

im not aware that roulette players use junk science or junk math, maybe some do.

you say you use stats, well hate to say it but so do roulette players!

I dont know any system based on werewolfs or vampires or ufo's, which none of that has to do with roulette, the problem with math people is that they will never beat roulette cause their minds cant comprehend it cause in theory roulette cant be beaten by math and any system based on math wont work in my opinion.

most systems wont work on roulette and my one may fail at some stage but with the right money management it can be in your favour, most people wont know how to beat roulette and never will but it can be beaten by looking at patterns, maybe they dont exist, all I know is that it can be beaten and there some not many but some people beating roulette and it wouldnt be easey, we have all herd people getting kick out or banned cause they earn to much, why because they were lucky, maybe if thats what you want to believe, but I dout it.

just because we chose to play it different and you cant comprehend how it can be beaten dosent mean it cant be beaten, just means your little brain cant comprehend whats possible. after all im sure at some stage they said the atom couldnt be cut in half.

[MauiSunset]

im not aware that roulette players use junk science or junk math, maybe some do.

you say you use stats, well hate to say it but so do roulette players!

I dont know any system based on werewolfs or vampires or ufo's, which none of that has to do with roulette, the problem with math people is that they will never beat roulette cause their minds cant comprehend it cause in theory roulette cant be beaten by math and any system based on math wont work in my opinion.

most systems wont work on roulette and my one may fail at some stage but with the right money management it can be in your favour, most people wont know how to beat roulette and never will but it can be beaten by looking at patterns, maybe they dont exist, all I know is that it can be beaten and there some not many but some people beating roulette and it wouldnt be easey, we have all herd people getting kick out or banned cause they earn to much, why because they were lucky, maybe if thats what you want to believe, but I dout it.

just because we chose to play it different and you cant comprehend how it can be beaten dosent mean it cant be beaten, just means your little brain cant comprehend whats possible. after all im sure at some stage they said the atom couldnt be cut in half.

See these stories remind me of Vampires, Werewolves and UFO stories - they are all bunk but sound interesting.

In my 2.5 month of investigating Roulette 100% of the systems folks brag about are built with UFO technology - math and science that don't exist on Earth in 2011.

Test it yourself - find some braggart here or other websites and they will boast about UFO technology they control - nothing that is grounded in Earth science and math...

[darrynf]

again you are full of shit maui

i never said anything about ufo's, im sick of your bullshit answers, why are you even here, to antaginise people ?

you arent here to help anyone just to voice your opinions and feel like you know everything but you are just a little man who knows nothing about roulette.

all you ever do is say the same over and over, just a different way of saying it, i think you have killed this forum, you dont have beliefes you are a dictator, you just want everyone to follow you and  your trail of shit, its people like you that kill forums. I dout you even play at all cause it seems to me you are on here most of the time.

anyway im sick and tired of your babble, and im guessing alot of people are sick of your shit, im gona go to a different forum, cant stand your bull shit anymore, never wanted to debate you in the first place so shame on me for interacting with you!!!!

[Mr J]

@Kelly >> Still waiting. Reply #48.

Ken

[MauiSunset]

again you are full of shit maui

I never said anything about ufo's, im sick of your bullshit answers, why are you even here, to antaginise people ?

you arent here to help anyone just to voice your opinions and feel like you know everything but you are just a little man who knows nothing about roulette.

all you ever do is say the same over and over, just a different way of saying it, I think you have killed this forum, you dont have beliefes you are a dictator, you just want everyone to follow you and  your trail of shit, its people like you that kill forums. I dout you even play at all cause it seems to me you are on here most of the time.

anyway im sick and tired of your babble, and im guessing alot of people are sick of your shit, im gona go to a different forum, cant stand your bull shit anymore, never wanted to debate you in the first place so shame on me for interacting with you!!!!

Wow, I am one powerful dude - I promise to wield this awesome power with reverence to all.

I'm just one guy, can you imagine other Black Jack players asking questions about all these voodoo topics here?

Good god.

In the world of Black Jack none of these crazy ideas are needed - just old fashioned statistics and skill at playing tens of thousands of hands.

My suggestion to folks here is to dump Junk Science and Math and get back to reality - if what you postulate isn't in books now then you are wasting your time and losing money on the craziest of ideas....

[Mr J]

Im pretty sure I know where you are heading ken, you want me to say that advantage players needs past numbers to make their prediction. Yeah well, you just dont know what you are talking about, they need past spins but couldnt care less about the actual numbers. For instance a visual ballistic player who wants to find an average bounce lenght for the ball, he needs past spins but NOT the numbers. He will track that the ball dropped at X spot, could be zero and ended up at 10. Both numbers will be noted but just to get the value between 0 and 10 which is 18. 18 pockets is what goes into the tracking NOT zero or 10.

For someone who talks so much about advantage play you know very little about it, you even talk more about it than I do.

Here is an average bounce chart. You see that the ball can bounce just about all poicket lenghts, so there is no guarantee for a hit in a particular spin so an advantage only comes over a period of spins where you allow the peak to manifest.

The visual player knows roughly where the ball is gonna hit the rotor so he has in this case his bets placed around 20 - 22 pockets away from where the ball first strikes. No reference to past numbers at all.



This is my point Kelly >> If you cant name any methods based on past numbers, does that mean, ALL methods are gamblers fallacy? Every method?

Ken

 

[Kelly]

I really don`t know which part you don`t understand. VB is NOT based on past numbers so its NOT a gamblers fallacy.  A biased wheel where they accidently made zero pocket double size is based on the fact that tis pocket is double sized. Not past numbers.You can use the past numbers to CONFIRM the pocket size though.

[Mr J]

I dont like agreein with the mathboyz.  Ken is kind of dumb bout this one though.

9 posts. I'll wait till around 300, just 'in case'.

Ken

[Mr J]

@Kelly >> My point was, why not just call EVERY method (non AP) gamblers fallacy? Is EVERY method gamblers fallacy? If no, can you post a link or explain whose method is NOT gamblers fallacy?

Ken

[Kelly]

My point is that yoiu only call methods that are based on past numbers for gamblers fallacy and yes you CAN test advantage play at home if you get a film of 100 spins with the same physical conditions that someone is going to play at the casino and take the time to learn the game so you can test it the way the AP will play it. You will get more or less the same end result give and take fluctations.

PS:
Play blindfolded or your kids birthdays numbers are 2 methods with another base than ap and past numbers. 

[Zindrod]

Good day Mr. J.

It is obvious that you have no concept of visual balistics if you make a connotation between gambler's fallacy and visual ballistics.

Basically one would determine through calculation where the ball will drop on the wheel.

[darrynf]

so in other words v.b is a method os system that is not based on gamblers fallacy, since it relies on the future spins then i would agree with kelly and zindrod.

so we have one way of playing.

[Mike]

@Kelly >> My point was, why not just call EVERY method (non AP) gamblers fallacy? Is EVERY method gamblers fallacy? If no, can you post a link or explain whose method is NOT gamblers fallacy?

Ken

Ken, it's obvious you have some kind of vendetta against AP, instead of bashing it why not try it?

Ok let's agree to redefine gambler's fallacy as all methods which use past spins (you'd better tell Wikipedia they've got it wrong). So AP is gambler's fallacy, now what? it just means that some methods which use past spins are better than others, so we're back to square one - which are the better methods?

And I've already told you in my previous post there are many methods which don't use past spins to choose the next bet. What's the point in discussing it? you've already made up your mind.

I think you're just bored or whatever. No-one can be dumb enough to confuse AP with GF.

Can they? 

[Mike]

The point is, gambler's fallacy isn't just about using past spins, it's about the REASON for using past spins. You are using them because you believe that in the short term the outcomes will balance out, and bet accordingly. If your choice of bet has nothing to do with this assumption, then you're not committing GF. Why is this so hard to understand? 

[Mike]

-