I just came across an article that made me feel as though I wasn't the only one in the world that had these feelings (I feel some what gratified so I figured I would share so those of you who share my feelings so you can experience it too, haha).
Alright, first my thoughts on gamblers fallacy, and then the link to the article. I've always been of the opinion that the not taking into account previous outcomes of the roulette wheel just doesn't make any sense. My reasons for that line of thinking are extensive, but I'll list just a few here:
How is it possible for the mathematicians to say that previous events have no effect on future events, and then in the same sentence say this (the following is from WizardOfOdds (.com)
What would be the odds of having a red number turn up 18 times in a row on Roulette. - Doug Jeffrey from Eugene, USA
(18/38)18 =~ 1 in 693745.
So, if that mathematician can show mathematically that red coming out 1 time all the way through 18 times in a row with a probablity that in constantly diminishing, how can he (or anybody else) say that previous events don't matter? Right at the end of that equation he is taking into account the 17 previous events that happened plus one more event to make a total of 18 events = his answer. It's puzzling to me that you can use math to show a diminishing probability of an event and then say all events regardless of previous outcomes have the same odds of happening.
Also, if previous and future events are in no way related (and I agree that if taken one spin at a time they aren't, but to look at many previous spins and then say the same I do not agree with) wouldn't it be common to see that at the end of 1,000,000 spins the numbers didn't come out at the expected rates of standard deviation. How can you calculate standard deviation on something that "has no standard"? And more importantly, if their is an established standard (which there is), wouldn't any serious deviation from that standard implore you to bet on that deviation rectifying itself?
What I mean is this, if after 1,000,000 spins two numbers never came out, that wheel would be deemed defective and would not be put into play. However, if the stance "no previous events have any meaning" were to be taken, that would just be chalked up to "random" not selecting those two numbers.
I could go on and on, but I won't. I just wanted to see if I'm the only one on this wavelength. If you'd like to read an excellent article on Gamblers Fallacy you can do so here: nolinks://nolinks.thegamblersedge.com/propensity.htm
Just to make this clear, that link above does not lead to any system or anything being sold of any kind. It is just an article (a very good one) on gamblers fallacy
Also, I welcome opposing viewpoints, but let's just keep it to conversation and stay away from the demeaning comments.
I agree with you, RJ. The whole gamblers fallacy theory in and of itself is flawed and is just one big fallacy as far as I am concerned. Certain individuals will always hide behind that as a reason to de-bunk a system. You don't know how many times I've been told, "It's pure gamblers fallacy", and then never offered a logical explanation as to why it is.
@ Rpro "how many times I've been told it's pure gamblers fallacy, and then offered a logical explanation as to why" - I'm still chuckling a bit. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about though. We're told "here are the odds that certain things will happen, oh, but wait, don't count on those odds as everything is totally random" I just can't subscribe to that line of thinking (whether or not I'm right or wrong).
Totally agreed. While it's true that a roulette doesn't have memory, it's common sense to know that if a number was hit, it will be really rare to hit again in the next spin, let alone in a 3rd one.
I've always thought that past events DO AFFECT future events. While it's true that that probability of hitting Black is 50%, if you have already hit B 7 times, the posibility of being hit again diminishes by each spin.
I'm not really that good explaining how I think about this matter, but that is probably the biggest fallacy I know from the roulette.
This article kind of gives me a fresh air.
Quote from: rjeaton1 on May 25, 2009, 10:03:38 PM
@ Rpro "how many times I've been told it's pure gamblers fallacy, and then offered a logical explanation as to why" - I'm still chuckling a bit. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about though. We're told "here are the odds that certain things will happen, oh, but wait, don't count on those odds as everything is totally random" I just can't subscribe to that line of thinking (whether or not I'm right or wrong).
Yeah, for some reason I just don't buy it and I can't buy it and never will...I don't want to deviate from the main thread, but nothing in this life happens by random, as past events someone did took him/her to where he/she is right now.
"So, if that mathematician can show mathematically that red coming out 1 time all the way through 18 times in a row with a probablity that in constantly diminishing, how can he (or anybody else) say that previous events don't matter?" >>> I can answer that. What he is stating is a "PRE-bet" on the math. The math before an event and AFTER an event are different. Example (00 wheel) ..... What are the odds of the same number hitting 3 times in a row? It is 54,872/1 but ONLY if you say it (or bet it, whatever term you desire) *BEFORE* that first spin. During those 3 spins, its still 1/38. I do believe in using PAST spins to a degree. The SMALL change I have in my terminology is I now prefer to call it, "more likely to happen". Others feel more comfortable with that definition as well. Ken
Quote from: rjeaton1 on May 25, 2009, 10:03:38 PM
We're told "here are the odds that certain things will happen, oh, but wait, don't count on those odds as everything is totally random" I just can't subscribe to that line of thinking (whether or not I'm right or wrong).
It's pretty simple actually. You're not betting whether or not Red and Black will even out in the long run, you're betting whether it's Red or Black that will show in the next spin (very short run).
- Red/Black evening out in the looong run is not random, it's a mathematical law.
- Which color will show up in the next spin, which color will show up after 15 Reds in a row, or which color will show up after 50 Reds in a row IS random.
In a roulette session (short run) you can never say that something is due, you can't track 100 spins and assume that Black is due just because Red came out much more often. Red can still maintain it's dominance for the next thousand spins.
Quote from: Marven on May 25, 2009, 10:38:53 PM
It's pretty simple actually. You're not betting whether or not Red and Black will even out in the long run, you're betting whether it's Red or Black that will show in the next spin (very short run).
- Red/Black evening out in the looong run is not random, it's a mathematical law.
- Which color will show up in the next spin, which color will show up after 15 Reds in a row, or which color will show up after 50 Reds in a row IS random.
In a roulette session (short run) you can never say that something is due, you can't track 100 spins and assume that Black is due just because Red came out much more often. Red can still maintain it's dominance for the next thousand spins.
The only thing I can't agree with on this (I'm very torn) is how can a device that is totally random conform to something so perfectly in the long run that its called a law. So we have these two very opposing statements:
A: Short Term - Completely and Hoplessly Random
B: Long Term - So Perfectly Far from Random it's a Mathematical Law Certain Things Will Happen
If on one hand it's totally random then all of a sudden it's a certainty....where is the line drawn? If I can make two finite statements like short term is definitely random, and long term is definitely going to conform to a mathematical law, then there must be a finite line or at least a line that is constantly moving (even if it's ever so slowly) towards that outcome that we're absolutely sure is going to happen.
I answered above. Ken
That line IS random. ;D
(moves randomly I mean)
To my humble understanding, you can't predict when exactly that "transition" from random towards the manifestation of the low will happen.
Hello,
RJ...
Quote from: rjeaton1 on May 25, 2009, 09:29:40 PM
How is it possible for the mathematicians to say that previous events have no effect on future events, and then in the same sentence say this (the following is from WizardOfOdds (.com)
What would be the odds of having a red number turn up 18 times in a row on Roulette. - Doug Jeffrey from Eugene, USA
(18/38)18 =~ 1 in 693745.
So, if that mathematician can show mathematically that red coming out 1 time all the way through 18 times in a row with a probablity that in constantly diminishing
I do not know very much math but I can say that I know this because I have
tested it hard:
The thing is that it is
NOT a diminishing probability.
(Excuse me for not counting zeros here)
The probability that you find a COMPLETE sequence of one Black OR LONGER is 1/2.
The probability that you find a COMPLETE sequence of two Blacks OR LONGER is 1/4.
The probability that you find a COMPLETE sequence of 3 Blacks OR LONGER is 1/8.
Please notice that I write "complete" and "...or longer": Both are very important.The probability to find a THIRD Black AFTER you have seen TWO is NOT 1/8 - it is the COMPLETE sequence OF THREE BLACKS that will be found in 1/8.
The probability to find a third Black after you have seen two is still 1/2.
And that is of course why any longer COMPLETE sequence will be found 1/2 as much as the shorter COMPLETE sequence.
Test it on your own recorded spins. It is very simple to see really.I do not understand why you have not done that... I have.
You will see it in a very small amount of spins. I think only a few hundred will be enough.
There is really no reason for you to NOT test it.But if you are too lazy to test it yourself it is also showed very clearly at my site:
nolinks://web.telia.com/~u35312066/
("Roulette Misconceptions Debunked" - no ads and nothing for sale)
Best regards,
Homeito Bemek
You are not understanding what was written.
Hello,
Herb...
I understand what was written in what I quoted:
"... that red coming out ... 18 times in a row with a probability that is constantly diminishing"
This I read as if RJ thinks that the probability is constantly diminishing WHILE Red is winning.
It is not. The 1/4 or 1/8 is established AFTER that the sequence is completed. Not WHILE it is growing.
That was really my comment.
I am sorry if it did not come through properly.
Maybe now?
Am I wrong about this?
Best regards.
Homeito
Quote from: Homeito on May 26, 2009, 05:55:49 AM
Hello,
Herb...
I understand what was written in what I quoted:
"... that red coming out ... 18 times in a row with a probability that is constantly diminishing"
This I read as if RJ thinks that the probability is constantly diminishing WHILE Red is winning.
It is not. The 1/4 or 1/8 is established AFTER that the sequence is completed. Not WHILE it is growing.
That was really my comment.
I am sorry if it did not come through properly.
Maybe now?
Am I wrong about this?
Best regards.
Homeito
So, what you're saying is that after a sequence is over the fact that 3 blacks in a row will come out is less likely than 2 blacks in a row will come out? That's kind of the point.
You're saying that there is a 1/4 chance of of three blacks in after the sequence is completed, and a 1/8 of a chance etc. You're still saying that one is less likely than another. How can it ever be less likely if the table is random?
You're telling me to go back and look at my past spins and examine them for strings of red and black and see which occurs more often? Again, kind of my point.
If I see that one thing happens less often than another, and that is going to continue to happen over and over again because of how simple it is and because it's happening because it's obeying mathematical certainty, then why would I bet not using previous events to help my decision?
Hello,
RJ...
It is not that I want to argue about this but only that this is exactly what I have discovered that I have been losing money on for years.
(One of two things...)
Maybe if I show you what I mean this way?
Suppose that you collect 16 sequences of Red and they are recorded like this:
B R B
B R B
B R B
B R B
B R B
B R B
B R B
B R B
B R R B
B R R B
B R R B
B R R B
B R R R B
B R R R B
B R R R R B
B R R R R R
In a perfect world (without zeroes) and in average 16 Red sequences will look like that.
And this is all very fine and it shows that the longer the sequence is the fewer there are of them.
But this is AFTER that you have collected all your sequences.
This is statistics. Not probability. Because you look back at what happened.
But now you are in a betting situation:
B R R ?
You have seen two Reds and now what?
If you check your records you will see that there are four sequences that end after two Reds.
And four sequences that shows at least one more Red.
So which to choose? End or continue? 50% chance for each...
This is probability. Not statistics. Because you look forward for what will happen.
And this is what I mean that you will see if you investigate your spins.
Best regards,
Homeito Bemek
PS. Because I do not want to argue I really have nothing more to say/add about this so I will leave you alone now.
PS2. (edit)
I can add that while I have no experience of probability-math it has been my job for several years to read statistics... ;)
Homeito is right here.
There is a big difference between betting on a single spin, and betting on a sequence of spins.
It is all about the time at which the bet is placed.
If you are at a time before the first spin of a sequence of 3 and you want a probability that we will see 3 reds it is indeed 1/8.
However, if we are at a time that is after the second spin but before the third spin, and we want a probability that a red will come up, it is 1/2 (assuming no zero of course)
If you want to bet based on the 1/8 theory, you must bet a system that uses a progression.
This would mean that you were betting on a sequence of events rather that a single event.
This Is the way that I beleive roultte can be beaten.
"What he is stating is a "PRE-bet" on the math. The math before an event and AFTER an event are different." >>> I answered like this quite a few posts back. Ken
Quote from: Homeito on May 26, 2009, 11:10:33 AM
Best regards,
Homeito Bemek
PS. Because I do not want to argue I really have nothing more to say/add about this so I will leave you alone now.
PS2. (edit)
I can add that while I have no experience of probability-math it has been my job for several years to read statistics... ;)
I value your input HomeIto, and I do not consider what you've said to be arguing. That is why I said I welcome opposing viewpoints, and to just keep it friendly (as you and everyone else has, for that I say Thanks Everybody!)
It is this kind of input from you and everyone else that helps me to "think outside of the box that I have created for myself" so to speak. Without new input or new viewpoints, I'm pretty sure my thought process will stagnate and cease to produce anything of any value. So thanks again!