All systems with some kind of "bet selection" are based on gambler's fallacy. If you don't believe this, try the following experiment. Choose a way of betting which is dependent on past outcomes and then record the numbers of wins and losses. It's easiest to do it betting one of the even chances. Probability says that you will get half as many "runs" of 2 as single outcomes, half as many runs of 3 as runs of 2, half as many runs of 4 as runs of 3 etc. What people fail to appreciate is that this doesn't just apply to red and black but WINS and LOSSES too.
The significance of this fact is that no bet selection can give any advantage whatsoever. It doesn't matter how carefully you pick your "opportunities", how complex the selection method is, how many bets you skip, how strong the "trend" is, or whatever. The results will be the same. You will get half as many double losses as single losses, half as many triple losses as double losses, etc, and the same goes for the wins. The way the wins and losses are distributed will be the same.
What type of betting is NOT gamblers fallacy?
Ken
Good question Ken. Actually it isn't quite true what I said, because if you bet for or against some pattern then it isn't GF. In that case you believe that some patterns are more likely than others, this is still wrong, because all patterns are equally likely, but it isn't gambler's fallacy.
Gambler's fallacy:
Quoteis the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process, future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely. For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.[2] Such an expectation could be mistakenly referred to as being due, and it probably arises from one's experience with nonrandom events (e.g. when a scheduled train is late, we expect that it has a greater chance of arriving the later it gets). This is an informal fallacy. It is also known colloquially as the law of averages.
Scattering chips randomly on the layout isn't GF, nor is any physics-based technique or bias.
Strictly speaking, betting on trends to continue isn't GF, but INVERSE GF:
QuoteThe reversal is also a fallacy, the inverse gambler's fallacy, in which a gambler may instead decide that tails are more likely out of some mystical preconception that fate has thus far allowed for consistent results of tails; the false conclusion being: Why change if odds favor tails? Again, the fallacy is the belief that the "universe" somehow carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes.
Both quotes are from Wikipedia.
So, just to be clear about this, you may look at past spins in order to use a physics-based technique, but it isn't gambler's fallacy because an imbalance may have a cause which you can either visually identify or infer as present due to a significant statistic (for example, in a few thousand spins you may notice that a number is hitting far more often than it should).
Looking at past spins and deciding that something or other is "due" or "trending" and betting accordingly is a form of gambler's fallacy.
Quote from: Mike on February 21, 2011, 02:22:03 PM
Looking at past spins and deciding that something or other is "due" or "trending" and betting accordingly is a form of gambler's fallacy.
Knowing the combinations of past spins and their statistical probability to continue or to cease as patterns must be Statistical Fallacy then. Frankly I don't give a GF or an SF. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 21, 2011, 03:24:38 PM
Knowing the combinations of past spins and their statistical probability to continue or to cease as patterns must be Statistical Fallacy then.
Correct. :thumbsup:
If you make decisions based ONLY on past outcomes, and you aren't interested in WHY those particular outcomes occurred, then it's GF. You can't bet on a pattern to occur or not, you can only bet on ONE outcome at a time.
If you could bet against the pattern RBRBRBR (or anything else) IN ONE BET, you could clean up. Betting R, then B, then R etc is NOT the same thing at all, but it's the only option you have. Statistics are useless because you can't bet for or against statistics. :'(
If statistic is not in balance I make my decisions.Is this for or against statistic? From the past you can learn ,the future is unknown.