There's the dictionary definition that says nothing is due, but I often wonder. I'm realizing I use gamblers fallacy all the time. If I'm stumped for a bet, I often look at the past spins and if I see something that hasn't happened in awhile I go for it, and I'm right more often than wrong. I couldn't play that way on every spin, but making an educated guess about it usually pays off.
That's correct. Sometimes gamblers fallacy works real good. It must work real good, work real bad, and be balanced like chaotic at times. It has three working states. Math people think that if you don't play VB then you must be forced to use gambler's fallacy. In fact they think that you can't escape from it or to control yourself. So what you really have is a new term to discuss here: "mathematical fallacy."
"The traditional way of presenting a mathematical fallacy is to give an invalid step of deduction mixed in with valid steps, so that the meaning of fallacy is here slightly different from the logical fallacy. The latter applies normally to a form of argument that is not a genuine rule of logic, where the problematic mathematical step is typically a correct rule applied with a tacit wrong assumption."
mathematical fallacy: nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy)
logical fallacy: nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy)
"A deductive fallacy, or logical fallacy, is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a deductive fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process."
It is a logical fallacy to apply long term probability to short term probability situations. You are supposed to be dazzled by arguments that attempt to do that. Math people can't deal with the work involved in understanding the difference, at least most of those full of too much math and not enough experience. It would be OK if you want to avoid them, if you can. In fact you would be smart.
It is a logical fallacy to apply long term probability to short term probability situations.>>>
Thank You! Its the square peg, round hole analogy. Or trying to teach a pig to sing. It won't work, and it just annoys the pig.
>>Math people can't deal with the work involved in understanding the difference, at least most of those full of too much math and not enough experience. It would be OK if you want to avoid them, if you can.>>
Not possible. They're everywhere, like Jehovahs Witnesses, spreading their religion and shoving all its fallacies down your throat whether you want it or not. Its like once they learn the one and only True Math That Governs All Gambling, they can't rest till they've converted everybody.
"If I'm stumped for a bet, I often look at the past spins and if I see something that hasn't happened in awhile I go for it"
Example please.
"I go for it, and I'm right more often than wrong. "
What did you do ?
I know, its not funny when people get specific, but i just wanna make sure you two talk about Roulette. I know, you can`t go into specifics, because you would have to kill me afterwards. Just another probability masturbation session that goes no where.
Example please.>>>
Pick one yourself, you have lots to choose from.
>>Just another probability masturbation session that goes no where.>>
Your's maybe, mine always go somewhere.
Kelly,
You have to understand that there are some people who when someone posts anything specific, they immediately jump in to say "no, this is gamblers fallacy, you can't win, hey! did you forgot the house edge!?"
These people make this place not an ideal place to talk about systems.
Here is a subject that is ALWAYS interesting. "Due"....I just dont know, thats my opinion. This I know, I have netted alot of money because of gamblers fallacy, thank GOD for it! If the 16 has not hit in 400 spins, will it hit soon? I dont know. Should it hit soon? I dont know. I am more of a believer in an 'event' being due (gamblers fallacy). With that definition, a SPECIFIC number(s) is out of the equation.
Steve posted a while back that ONE of his definitions of gamblers fallacy is.......If I bet $5 on red, it does not hit and then I raise my bet to $6, a ONE TIME ONLY increase, that is also gamblers fallacy. I dont agree but oh well. I know I did a thread about it here, GG and a couple other sites, it was a fun subject. Yep, you know those questions of mine......crazy topics, out to 'start trouble'. :thumbsup: Ken
QuoteIt is a logical fallacy to apply long term probability to short term probability situations.
But this is exactly what you and spike do with your "educated guessing".
There is no mathematical formula for the next few spins - isn't that the point you're trying to make? On what then, do you base your next guess?
answer: On what has happened in the last few spins, some pattern or sequence which has already occurred. Since there is no short-term predictor, you don't have any alternative but to use the long-term probability results. If you regard the last few spins as a partially completed sequence, then your job (as an educated guesser) is to complete it. What information do you use to do this? if you say "experience" then this means all the patterns that are "predicted" by the long-term probability formulas. You cannot successfully guess a single, isolated occurrence of a pattern at a higher rate than the long-term formula predicts, and all your play is just a collection of single, isolated guesses.
I have netted alot of money because of gamblers fallacy, thank GOD for it!>>>
Like Gizmo said, gamblers fallacy can be exploited like everything else. Its only a fallacy if you don't understand how random works.
>>What information do you use to do this? if you say "experience" then this means all the patterns>>
Where did I say I play patterns? Random is made up of a hell of a lot more than patterns. everything that happened in the recent past can apply to the next spin. Or not. Thats why I make guesses, not predictons.
Gamblers like to talk about the "flow" of the game and "trends". But this is just a mind-projection fallacy. In reality there are no trends which "form" or "play themselves out", there are only individual events (spins) which when viewed as a sequence (collection) seem to represent a separate entity, but this is just an abstraction.
QuoteWhere did I say I play patterns?
Spike,
This is what you do all the time. It's a classic example of leading people on a merry dance. You change the rules and terms all the time, contradict yourself endlessly, and make pointless nit-picking distinctions between things only you claim to understand.
What's funny is that you set yourself up as some kind of gambling soothsayer when it's transparently obvious that you're making a complete arse of yourself. :haha:
QuoteI said: "It is a logical fallacy to apply long term probability to short term probability situations."
Quote from: Bayes on April 24, 2010, 03:06:24 AM
But this is exactly what you and spike do with your "educated guessing".
What a ridiculous conclusion. It's what you are doing and now that I called you on it you run like a chicken. You are the math Nazi, not me. I guess now that everyone knows that your math and logical fallacies are officially what you are leaning on for a crutch, you can own up to it.
"I know you are but what am I" doesn't get it. :'(
In reality there are no trends which "form" or "play themselves out", there are only individual events (spins) which when viewed as a sequence (collection)>>>
Ever see an old litho movie poster? If you look at it under a magnifying glass, you see its made up of thousands of tiny dots that make no sense at all. Its only when you look at the thing as a whole (individual events viewed as a sequence) that you see a detailed picture. Of course the image is an illusion, but if was a picture of an elephant and you asked 25 people, they would all say it was an elephant.
Its the same with trends. Of course they don't exist, but that doesn't mean they can't be exploited.
It's a classic example of leading people on a merry dance.>>
Seriously, point out where I ever said I play patterns. They're a part of the whole, but I certainly do nothing like you suggested above.
Kav, i know so i normally don`t go into system discussions, been there, done that and all that. But you gotta admit that the system discussers DO discuss specifics, where spike don`t hesitate to mention, at least 10 times a day that he can read random but refuses to discuss it more specific.
Its just "i can, you losers can`t" Full Stop.
Quote from: Bayes on April 24, 2010, 03:17:57 AM
Gamblers like to talk about the "flow" of the game and "trends". But this is just a mind-projection fallacy. In reality there are no trends which "form" or "play themselves out", there are only individual events (spins) which when viewed as a sequence (collection) seem to represent a separate entity, but this is just an abstraction.
Mindless garbage. So bet the abstraction when it's in a positive state. You can call it Cubism if you want. It won't bight you if you use asbestos gloves. Jackson Pollock could read randomness.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.stuckism.com%2Fabsolon%2FCassieThinkingAbouCubism400.jpg&hash=f9bd84bab6ff83aa2fa194e9a13bccc989d4f047)
Read this:
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.doobybrain.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F12%2Fjackson-pollock-me.jpg&hash=57f8ffa70497ad8168548670cad228d829a1df77)
Random events forming an illusion is every bit as exploitable and an artist painting an illusion and exploiting it. Just because its not real doesn't mean you can't make money on it.
QuoteJust because its not real doesn't mean you can't make money on it.
A trend means there is some connection between the individual events which make up the trend. A trend in fashion or culture or market prices is formed and then persists because of human psychology (the herd instinct). This doesn't exist in roulette, therefore all you can do is guess that a trend may be forming and jump on it, but there is no cause underlying the trend so you can't reliably exploit it in the way you can with psychological trends. Other trends may exist because of a physical cause (such as a bias in the wheel) and these can also be exploited. A trend without a cause is not really a trend, it's just a repetition of events which must occur in any random sequence.
but there is no cause underlying the trend>>
That doesn't mean it can't be exploited.
>A trend without a cause is not really a trend>>
Sure it is. What difference does it make where it comes from. Its a short term trend, they come and go. Why are you so hung up on where 'real' trends come from? A trend is a trend.
Here's a really good question and try to answer it honestly. You've decided to place a 100K bet on red or black and the casino has said OK. Would you just randomly pick R or B or wait till you see something like RRRR B RRR B RRRR B
and go with the trend and bet red? I would always bet red.
Be honest!
yep id always be betting on red at that point aswell.
iv seen like 20 singles in a row over the years but never seen more than 14 reds in a row. (yet)
mattjono
QuoteHere's a really good question and try to answer it honestly. You've decided to place a 100K bet on red or black and the casino has said OK. Would you just randomly pick R or B or wait till you see something like RRRR B RRR B RRRR B
and go with the trend and bet red? I would always bet red.
Be honest!
Question.
Exampel 1
RRRRBRRRBRRRRB
Exampel 2
R
Do you claim there is an difference if we would place 100K on exampel 1 and 2 ? bet red ?
Cheers
@ Gizmotron,
Who's work is that colour splatter abstract?
It is a very clever piece of art.
I imagine a team of astronauts in outerspace emptying 12 cans of silly string and having a jolly good laugh at the hovering mess.
On post #17 is my breakfast cereal. :diablo:.
Quote from: I have cookies on April 24, 2010, 06:37:23 AM
Question.
Exampel 1
RRRRBRRRBRRRRB
Exampel 2
R
Do you claim there is an difference if we would place 100K on exampel 1 and 2 ? bet red ?
Cheers
Kindergarden question - even if we would add strike distribution it would make no difference if you make one bet with 100K - so what is so good about that question - it is rediculus ...
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1 L
1
1
2
1
1
2
1 W
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2 W
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1 L
2
2
1
2
2
1
1 L
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2 W
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1 W
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1 L
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2 W
2
2
1
2
2
1
1 L
Quote from: I have cookies on April 24, 2010, 06:54:52 AM
Kindergarden question - even if we would add strike distribution it would make no difference if you make one bet with 100K - so what is so good about that question - it is rediculus ...
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1 L
1
1
2
1
1
2
1 W
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2 W
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1 L
2
2
1
2
2
1
1 L
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2 W
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1 W
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1 L
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2 W
2
2
1
2
2
1
1 L
I would not say it public that you are stupid - i just dont understand your question and that there is or should be an difference...
Cheers
I can remember on several occasions showing a couple of work colleagues some correct or superior ways to carry out the tasks at hand. After my explanations and physical demonstrations, they nodded politely and carried on with their substandard work practice, completely ignoring the wisdom I just gave them.
Sometimes people can be so thick its mind boggling.
QuoteI can remember on several occasions showing a couple of work colleagues some correct or superior ways to carry out the tasks at hand. After my explanations and physical demonstrations, they nodded politely and carried on with their substandard work practice, completely ignoring the wisdom I just gave them.
Sometimes people can be so thick its mind boggling.
I agree to that :lol:
Patterns Trends 123456789 10 20 30 change jack s**t if you play with or againt or try to out guess if it is going to rain or not - no matter how good you play an piano :lol: with one bet 100K :lol:
Quote from: Spike! on April 24, 2010, 05:15:06 AM
but there is no cause underlying the trend>>
That doesn't mean it can't be exploited.
>A trend without a cause is not really a trend>>
Sure it is. What difference does it make where it comes from. Its a short term trend, they come and go. Why are you so hung up on where 'real' trends come from? A trend is a trend.
Spot on,trends come and go all the time on the roulette wheel and its just about knowing when they are going to appear and when they are going to change.
rrrbbbrrrbbb-i started at that point-next 6 spins rrrbbbr :yahoo:
Practice practice and practice is the answer before you even start your attack on the casino's,i'm only just beginning to understand these short term trends on the roulette wheel,and i will carry on testing for a long time before i even start playing with real money.
Sure it will be worth it in the end,put in the effort to learn this stuff properly and reap the rewards later,shame most people won't bother because what i'm slow discovering is frankly astonishing and if it wasn't for people like Spike and Gizmotron i would never have found out about this ,amazing :good:
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.zaxtor.net%2Fhillbilly.jpg&hash=09f77e3913ff66c8c8dd93f24b8b39603849b9a9)
Genius in the Making:The "Mole Brothers" were early trend spotters.
Pictured above: Spike Mole and Gizmotron Mole.
Quote from: I have cookies on April 24, 2010, 07:24:59 AM
I agree to that :lol:
Patterns Trends 123456789 10 20 30 change jack s**t if you play with or againt or try to out guess if it is going to rain or not - no matter how good you play an piano :lol: with one bet 100K :lol:
lol :biggrin:
ROFLMAO. :haha:
P.S
One looks like Cosmo Kramer of the Seinfeld show.
Quote from: Bayes on April 24, 2010, 04:59:32 AM
... A trend without a cause is not really a trend, it's just a repetition of events which must occur in any random sequence.
So take advantage of the "repetition of events which must occur in any random sequence." Your problem is not in identifying the existence of a trend or even whether or not there is a reason for it. Your problem is in knowing how to take advantage of things that occur as nothing more than coincidence. There is no cause for something continuing or ending. You control the situation by selecting which way to bet. You can be the only effect that has force. You just don't know what to do or why you don't know it.
Quote from: bombus on April 24, 2010, 06:45:54 AM
@ Gizmotron,
Who's work is that colour splatter abstract?
That's Jackson Pollock.
Quote from: I have cookies on April 24, 2010, 07:24:59 AM
I agree to that :lol:
Patterns Trends 123456789 10 20 30 change jack s**t if you play with or againt or try to out guess if it is going to rain or not - no matter how good you play an piano :lol: with one bet 100K :lol:
Why must you change things in order to make advantageous moves? You don't need to change things in order to win more than you lose. You just need to guess more times correctly. Still trying to think inside the math box? Yes, you are.
Quote from: Herb6 on April 24, 2010, 10:37:06 AM
Genius in the Making:The "Mole Brothers" were early trend spotters.
Pictured above: Spike Mole and Gizmotron Mole.
Herb finely makes me laugh. Very funny.
QuoteYou just need to guess more times correctly. Still trying to think inside the math box? Yes, you are.
Impressive :lol:
PLZ read this again I could not belive it and had to read it twice :lol:
QuoteHere's a really good question and try to answer it honestly. You've decided to place a 100K bet on red or black and the casino has said OK. Would you just randomly pick R or B or wait till you see something like RRRR B RRR B RRRR B
and go with the trend and bet red? I would always bet red.
Be honest!
WOW that is deep :lol:
QuoteI would play red
as it would exist an difference !!!
If my bankroll was 1,000,000 then I would bet red at 100,000.
because what I'm slow discovering is frankly astonishing >>>
Shh, don't tell Herb, he still hasn't gotten over tornado's being astonishing. He chases after them and stands outside his truck with his mouth hanging open and wonders 'What now?'
The "Mole Brothers" were early trend spotters.>>
They spotted a trend in their family that nobody ever reached 3rd grade.
QuoteIf my bankroll was 1,000,000 then I would bet red at 100,000.
This is intressting.
The scale would be 10 attempts to gain minimum +1 and that does 10 attempts would overcome the amount of times you gain +1 or above.
I understand that not all see the significant point with this ... my only comment is - ridiculus ...
Cheers
QuoteSpot on,trends come and go all the time on the roulette wheel and its just about knowing when they are going to appear and when they are going to change.
Yes, trends come and go all the time. You "just" need a crystal ball to take advantage of them. :haha:
If you don't have a crystal ball, you can jump on an (apparently) emerging trend just like Gizmo recommends. Nothing is stopping you playing trends. The problem is, the number of times the trend continues (and you make a profit) vs the number of times it doesn't (and you make a loss) adds up to a loss. Anyone can prove this for themselves with enough time and effort (and preferably some programming skills).
This has been done time and time again and has shown to yield no advantage whatsoever. If you're not convinced, then do the work yourself and move on.
G'day,
I have yet to be rude in any post that I've made (under this username),
BUT, I have cookies, Jordan27 & Bayes your lack of actual knowledge on this subject
is not only laughable but has me feeling the way the first people trying to extol the belief
of 'a round earth' to the ignorant flat earthers that can't / won't evolve!
All 3 of you mention portions of my always winning system!
QuoteG'day,
I have yet to be rude in any post that I've made (under this username),
BUT, I have cookies, Jordan27 & Bayes your lack of actual knowledge on this subject
is not only laughable but has me feeling the way the first people trying to extol the belief
of 'a round earth' to the ignorant flat earthers that can't / won't evolve!
All 3 of you mention portions of my always winning system!
MiniBaccarat I hope you feel better now - after that reply - and I would not use words like moron, stupid or idiot as I would not like to offend you.
Taste this combination - words + state of mind = ?
I think it is great that you know what you do and make money, enjoy and have fun, good for you.
Take care ...
Quote from: Bayes on April 25, 2010, 07:32:44 AM
Yes, trends come and go all the time. You "just" need a crystal ball to take advantage of them. :haha:
If you don't have a crystal ball, you can jump on an (apparently) emerging trend just like Gizmo recommends. Nothing is stopping you playing trends. The problem is, the number of times the trend continues (and you make a profit) vs the number of times it doesn't (and you make a loss) adds up to a loss. Anyone can prove this for themselves with enough time and effort (and preferably some programming skills).
This has been done time and time again and has shown to yield no advantage whatsoever. If you're not convinced, then do the work yourself and move on.
Well its certainly not easy,sometimes the trend will continue for a long time,then again sometimes it changes very quickly,you just hope the trend continues more time than it doesn't,so that way you will be in profit.Its not for the faint-hearted 8)
I notice over at gg someone offered 10,000 dollars if anyone could guess the correct outcome of an E/C roulette bet 65% of the time,now Spike and gizmotron have been full of themselves that they can do this at a breeze,yet neither of them took up the challenge.
Odd that,considering how long they have been banging on about how easy it is to guess at that rate,when someone offers them money to prove it they both backed down :laugh:
Well they are certainly full of something that's for sure :sarcastic:
Sensing
Sensors pay attention to both immediate data from their five senses and from their own direct experiences. They are create meaning from conscious thought, rather than trusting their subconscious, limiting their attention to facts and solid data. As necessary, they will happily dig into the fine detail of the situation.
They focus on what is immediate, practical and real, and live life as it is rather than trying to change the world.
They like logic and tend to pursue things in a clear sequence. At work, they will have a clear schedule and like to use their proven skills in tactical situations.
They may be seen as frivolous or short-sighted by Intuitors.
Intuiting
Intuitors process data more deeply than sensors and are happy to trust their subconscious and 'sixth sense', gut feel, intuition or whatever you want to call it.
They are good at spotting patterns and taking a high-level view, as opposed to digging into the detail.
They like ideas and inspiration and tend to have a focus on the future, where they will plan to change the world rather than continue to live in the imperfect present.
At work, they like to acquire new skills and working at the strategic level.
They may be seen as impractical, theoretical and lacking determination by Sensors.
this is Mbti talking..
My impression on this subject..
There are Sensors... There are Intuitives.. :)