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.
Do you mean group them together, or observe a group of them simultaneously/collectively?
yeh spike your due to get head knocked off!
I say, Ol' Bean, that was a bit harsh don't you think?
Sam
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. :girl_wacko: Ken
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.
Casinos love those marquees. Las Vegas and Monte Carlo were built on the gambler's fallacy and the "hot hand" fallacy.
Quote from: SpikeAnd 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.
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.
"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
Fender1000,
Go to dictionary.com and type in the word, LOGIC.
Best of Luck,
Herb :)
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.foolsphilosophy.com%2Fimages%2Feinstein-is-an-old-soul-are-you1.jpg&hash=cc17d9afb97bbd878ef060f1093b7d6d9befbc45)
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.
>>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.
QuoteListen I respect Einstein BUT he was wrong about roulette simples. - Fender1000
Ok, then prove it. Show us the math :)
You speak of hit-rate as if it is a new concept that we don't understand and our math can't calculate. ::)
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. ;D
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.
Quote from: Spike! on April 27, 2010, 09:25:54 PM
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.
ooops, i meant Dark Matter Math :D
Dark Matter Math>>>
Or Black Hole Math. Everything goes in and nothing comes out. How about Kamakazi Math. You keep playing till you win or your whole BR is gone.
Fender1000,
Ok, Let me get this straight, you don't understand the math involved, but you're sure Einstein and every encyclopedia out there is wrong? :sarcastic:
Of course Einstein was wrong, he was 'old school' math. Fender is the New Math generation, the old ways are gone. Get with the program, Herb, what Fender is doing has NEVER been done before.
You're all wrong!
Its Peripheral Math or Periphermatics.
The idea is you skip around the outer edge of mainstream math hence avoiding the common pitfalls.
You know, like the old children's sidewalk game... step on a crack, break your mother's back!
Nope, its Hide n Seek Math. You play for awhile and then find some place to hide from the losing session thats coming. A good place to hide is the restroom or the bar. Just be sure its a place where the wheel can't see you.
Quote from: bombus on April 27, 2010, 10:15:00 PM
step on a crack, break your mother's back!
I stepped on the crack fifty times. That doesn't work either.
Quote from: fender1000 on April 27, 2010, 09:16:46 PM
YOUR MATH. No it can't because you live in a virtual world. Go test it on a real wheel and come back to me with the results.
You're right! Who needs that virtual stuff when you can go to the casino, play your dozen system and make a great living?
All that virtual math rubbish... "edge", "compound interest"... who actually needs this? Some misguided math-nazi individuals maybe, but certainly not those billion-dollar corporations (including casinos)! All those companies and businesses certainly know better, and would never be stupid enough to base their income on this "virtual" stuff. They understand that math with its statistics and models doesn't apply in the real world of fender, that's what makes them rich.
Quote from: SpikeAs 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.
Its called randomness. You can always find situations where the gambler's fallacy seems to "work", and other times where it doesn't. That's why you need to look at the big picture.
The big picture tells you that it doesn't.
I have a question for Herb:
Herb, how did you come to the way you play now? when you were considering playing roulette as a possible way of making money, did you immediately dismiss any non-physics/bias methods as simply illogical, or did you investigate the systems/mathematical approach and discover by experience that it didn't work?
The big picture tells you that it doesn't.>>
But you don't bet on the big picture, you bet on the next spin. Gamblers fallacy can be used to your advantage in the short term if you know where to look.
Quote from: fender1000 on April 28, 2010, 07:52:45 PM
There is no such thing as GAMBLERS FALLACY. What there is, are STRATEGIES THAT WORK,(THE ZONE, THREE OF A KIND ETC) And a whole bunch that don't. With awful money management attached to them. The fools that DON'T THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Who are drawn to play these gaurunteed losers. Create this so-called gamblers fallacy. Its just a fancy term for stupid gambler.
The ONE PERCENT of gamblers who know what they are doing. With a consistent strategy, good money mangement. And self discipline. Walk away with a profit. I am one of that small crowd. My job over the next 5 years is to increase the percentage of winners. Once people know the truth, START THINKING FOR THEMSELVES (ever done that maths heads, its not a crime ya know Einstein won't start haunting you) And start seeing how this game is very beatable WHEN APPROACHED ***THE RIGHT WAY***. That will happen.
Your book is going to be a massive failure. You have marginalized the author before ever printing any ink. You can't relate to real players that frequent real casinos. Your riding in on a white horse & white knight clad hero is a bit over the top. Might I suggest that you need to be heard as much as you accuse Herb / Snowman of needing it. All this is is your big idea. You've already explained it. There is no need to buy the book. Perhaps a few might pay for your memoirs.
Believe me PEOPLE will buy it. >>
No they won't. First of all, books on gambling have always been very poor sellers. Secondly, who wants to read a book where all the author does is scream at them about how great he is, how much he knows, and has not one bit of proof to back up anything he says. Sorry, saying you win isn't proof of anything. And when you make statements like one street consistantly hits more than the other streets, they will put it in the comedy section of Amazon.
Quote from: fender1000 on April 28, 2010, 08:14:29 PM
Giz thats your opinion. And from a man who thinks he knows too much to impart any morsel of actual worthwhile working strategy. That you claim vastly inproves on THE ZONE. ...
I was just kidding you. It was another baloney parade with dancing clowns and a Calliope. Perhaps you missed my last one. I tell the truth after 24 hours. (NOW A TREND) LOL
Quote from: fender1000 on April 28, 2010, 08:37:26 PM
... You will wake up fast. And remember this was the guy I was arguing with on VLS. Now he is doing it realtime.
If what you say is true you won't be doing it in real-time because the casinos don't hand out charity. They will shut you down. I think your statue belongs next to the one for Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel. I say right there by the classic Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas Sign.
;D
:lol:
Quote from: fender1000 on April 28, 2010, 09:03:24 PM
They will after I HAVE DONE IT. They can't shut me down until they know I am a threat and have them beat do you understand. By which time I will have made a stack. And made a NOISE. People will want to know how I did it. Uh its in my book coming out next month.
OMG! You mean after 11 years of living off this thing you don't have millions yet? The way I see it ScoobyDoo is going to beat you to it. He actually has a bankroll and doesn't live in his mother's basement. So good luck with that rat race. This is so funny now. Oh, that's right, I'm one of those silly skeptics that were making fun of you when everyone goes back to this and reads the archives. Hi sports fans. :shout:
It's a strange world.
Balvinder Sambhi's book "breaking the wheel" was about how he systematically broke the casino, (in his own words, "not financially but mentally" lol) So I bought the book from amazon because it was reduced from £100 to £25. There was my first mistake :-[
My second mistake was to spend a few hours reading it. The thing is that he played at my local casino and I know he definately got banned for winning 20k over a couple of months playing his systems outlined in the book.
The irony is that it is basically just another up as you lose progression bet which is really no different to Fender's ZONE.
I will be creative and type the 2 methods out in my own words on a seperate thread.
You should love it Fender, it is right up your street.
Unless you have an edge where you are putting the odds in your favour, 1 + 1 will always = 2 less the house edge!
It is quite simple.
when i started playing roulette i won five days in a row. but then the house edge caught up with me. no matter what system you play the house will beat you. its all chance what happened before has no bearing on what will happen in the future. take the even money bets you can have five picks to back a winner. this sounds fool proof. but give it a try. i still play roulette some visits you win and some visits you lose. the thing is you do not know the day you will win .
... :sarcastic:
"thats exactly where I will break THE ZONE in a way that no casino has ever seen. They will not understand how someone who isn't cheating is taking them to pieces. By 2012. I will be in a position to make serious waves in the gambling world" >>> More like...THE CRAZY ZONE. Get help soon bro. Ken
This is why I never ever have posted dollar information on forums. Have you noticed how stupid the people look who do it? I do this much and Stack does that much and have this much BR and blah blah. Like anyone can believe anybody else where money is concerned.
QuoteI have a bankroll allright. nearly 18 grand and growing. Listen at the end of the day you talk the talk. People like Stackbundles scooby and myself prefer real life and real money. You will be lost in computer trials for the rest of your days. Pointless if you don't get a better life out of it.
And you're conviced that Einstein, phd mathematicians, and every encyclopedia out there is wrong?
Sorry kid, but I don't think so. :sarcastic:
the only person who might beat me to it is STACKBUNDLES.>>>
And he, by his own admisson, is 23 years old. That makes you what, 22? Yeah, the casinos are shaking in their boots at guys who weren't even old enough to be in a casino till 2008 and 2009. Young and stupid I think they call it.
And you forget, he's been playing for 10 years now. :sarcastic:
Fender,
We just took a vote. You're at most 12. :sarcastic:
Getting back on topic, I think this thread is almost "due" to get vaporized! :yes:
Quote from: fender1000 on April 28, 2010, 09:33:12 PM
Einstein is VERY wrong about ROULETTE. MATHS GENIUS YES. Authority on EVERY possibility for ROULETTE I THINK NOT. He didnt dedicate enough time to it to REALLY KNOW. If he had. youd all be singing a different tune.
Why stop at a statue next to Bugsy Siegel. This guy needs to win the next Fields Medal.
nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal)
Quote from: bombus on April 28, 2010, 09:34:56 PM
Getting back on topic, I think this thread is almost "due" to get vaporized! :yes:
Don't you dare shut this down. Wild animals have got to eat too.
FENDER 22 AND ALL YOU GUYS ARE 3 YEARSold THATS WHAT ITS SOUNDS LIKE .
fender check your pm
Is any thing really due yes.
DEATH and TAXES plus WOMEN being pissed off lol lol.
No numbers are due when you put real money on them.
Stuart
WOMEN being pissed off>>>
Women being pissed off is a constant occurance and your best bet. Its a sure thing.
AMEN THE TRUTH IS HERE lol.
Yes it is a sure thing.
Stuart
Here's the big flaw in your waiting for your numbers to become "due".
Let's say you decide that you will wait for five reds to hit before beginning to bet by using a five step progression.
(In this example, we are going to pretend the zeros don't exist so that it's easier for you to follow)
Here's what will happen. You will wait approx. 32 spins, on average, before you have a chance to bet on red. Once you have your chance to bet, you will lose your five step progression, on average, once in every 32 spins. (2^5 = 32) (Reality is 18/37 ^5) (For a payoff of only even money.)
Now how does that compare to not waiting?
Answer: The chance of hitting is the same. You will still lose your progression, on average, once every 32 spins.
In short, quit wasting your time standing around. :sarcastic:
-Herb