Why do people fall prey to systems based on the gambler's fallacy like "The Zone"?
To help everyone gain insight into the problem, here's some information that you might find interesting.
Scientific expertise can provoke a backlash: Participants in a University of Maryland experiment were more likely to express belief in ESP if they were told that most scientists thought it was bunk. - Source is Scientific American.
This experminet helps explain why people fall prey to absurd systems like The Zone and The Enigimista Cult. rather than simply believing an encyclopedia. When someone knowledgeable explains why a system won't work, it triggers the activation of a stupid gene in certain people that bascially tells the person to say, "Nuh-uh!"
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Ftonova.typepad.com%2Fthesuddencurve%2Fimages%2F2008%2F08%2F16%2Fhillbilly.jpg&hash=059d2ba1f7f4ee5f2800e3993a1a486c99b7cade)
Why do people fall prey to systems based on the gambler's fallacy like "The Zone"?>>
Because they're ignorant of how the game works and they're greedy. Don't read anything more into it than that.
>>rather than simply believing an encyclopedia.>>
If its about roulette and its in an encyclopedia, its true. Just ask MathPeeps. :lol:
As many times as people rip on gamblers fallacy is the same number of times I'll respond. That way, 'they' won't feel they have the run of the place. We have discussed MANY times, the DEFINITION of gamblers fallacy, there are MORE than one. Steve 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 (agenda?). Do I agree with him?
No but again, different definitions. I have posted MANY times, I have changed my view over the years regarding ONE definition. If the number 16 has not hit in 350 spins, it does not mean it'll hit 'soon'. I have no issue with that. To say that past numbers have NO place for methods....one would have to be BROKE. Ken
Gamblers Fallacy is big blanket that tries to cover everything. It fails.
"Gamblers Fallacy is big blanket that tries to cover everything" >>> Again, different definitions. I dont need it to cover everything, nor does it, nor should it. On most boards, if you win somewhat long term (another definition) and you dont claim your play is AP (cough) then you MUST be interested in gamblers fallacy. Its a double edge sword and always will be. Losers HATE winners, thats a **FACT**. Ken
Quote from: Mr J on June 13, 2010, 12:37:48 AM
the DEFINITION of gamblers fallacy, there are MORE than one.
You (and Spike) are (deliberately/politically) complicating a simple notion. Gambler's fallacy is any
fallacy on which a gambler bases his bets on.
It's usually the belief that something is "due" in a random game just because it has showed in x number of trials. But there certainly different forms of it.
In a nutshell, it's betting on a number/group of numbers and thinking it somehow is special (I.e. has higher chance of appearing), for reasons such as its being "due" because it has been "sleeping" for a while, or its being currently "hot"/"active"/"trendy", or its being the result of some super-educated
(yet can't grasp basic probability) guess that is based on merely looking at past random-noise that has already happened, or its being based on the teachings of some self-proclaimed Italian pseudo-scientist who uses past random numbers that have already appeared in some sort of mystic calculations that will reveal the future, etc.
Quote from: Mr J on June 13, 2010, 12:37:48 AM
If the number 16 has not hit in 350 spins, it does not mean it'll hit 'soon'.
Yes, I don't see the casino closing a wheel for maintenance (or to spin the wheel for a little while without taking bets) just because some number went 350 spins with no hits and it now has an advantage.
"You're (deliberately) complicating a simple notion" >>> 100% correct, I am. Ken
I quoted you before you changed it. Where did I use the word 'due' for a method? Ken
Quote from: Mr J on June 13, 2010, 01:21:56 AM
I quoted you before you changed it.
I just saw Spike's post, had to address him too. Me being his moderator and all...
Quote from: Mr J on June 13, 2010, 01:21:56 AM
Where did I use the word 'due' for a method?
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.
"The concept of betting on something that is "due" is clearly implied in all of your bet-selections" >>> In all of MINE or anyone who uses a method? Ken
You (and Spike) are (deliberately/politically) complicating a simple notion.>>>
Its more of a 'simpletons' notion I think. If you catch my drift..
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
Quote from: Mr J on June 13, 2010, 01:32:06 AM
In all of mine or anyone who uses a method? Ken
"A method" is too generic.
"A method that is based on fallacy", is more like it.
Ken,
Yes, you are indeed one of the poster children for The Gambler's Fallacy
For reasons which you already know. ;D
-Herb6
Sooo, with that logic, not all methods use gamblers fallacy? And the ones that do, that all depends on the definition. Ken
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.
Ken,
Everyone but you seems to grasp what is and what is not Gambler's Fallacy.
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'. :haha: Ken
Sales must be slow. :girl_wacko:
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 13, 2010, 01:27:14 AM
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.
Gizmotron,
Sorry, but you too are one of the poster children.
Quote from: Mr J on June 13, 2010, 01:36:34 AM
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. >:D
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. 8) Ken
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 13, 2010, 01:58:40 AM
You are not qualified to moderate me.
(bla bla bla...)
You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.
I like you too Gizmo. :)
Quote from: Herb6 on June 13, 2010, 02:03:57 AM
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.
"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
Every bet I make violates some form of gamblers fallacy.
One mans Gambles Fallacy is the winning mans belly laugh.. :lol:
Quote from: Mr J on June 13, 2010, 02:08:30 AM
My POINT on THIS board is......its funny how EVERYTHING is gamblers fallacy UNLESS I purchase something. 8) 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.
Noble Sadistic:
QuoteYou are not qualified to moderate me.
(bla bla bla...)
You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.
QuoteYou are not qualified to moderate me.
(bla bla bla...)
You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.
QuoteYou are not qualified to moderate me.
(bla bla bla...)
You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.
QuoteYou are not qualified to moderate me.
(bla bla bla...)
You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.
QuoteYou are not qualified to moderate me.
(bla bla bla...)
You are nothing but a whiny internet pest.
"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
Noble,
In short, the more we tell Gizmo and Mr. J that ESP is bunk, the more likely they are to believe that is real.
Quote from: Herb6 on June 13, 2010, 02:28:36 AM
Noble,
In short, the more we tell Gizmo and Mr. J that ESP is bunk, the more likely they are to believe that is real.
hahaha ;D
Quote from: Mr J on June 13, 2010, 02:24:15 AM
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
Right, I mean, "The only way to beat roulette is by increasing the accuracy of predictions". Duh! Of course it is, how else could it be beaten? That's the aim of every gambling system, increasing accuracy (compared to that of random-betting).
Is that "catchy" sentence supposed to be some sort of revelation or just a sales thing? ;D
Voilà, now I'm on the Red List of (ban)Threatened Species.
the more likely they are to believe that is real.>>>
Just so YOU keep believing its real is all I care about..