Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

What Does Gamblers Fallacy Mean To You?

Started by Spike!, April 23, 2010, 10:07:51 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Spike!

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.

gizmotron

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

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.

Spike!

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.

Kelly

"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.

Spike!

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.

kav

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.

Mr J

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

Bayes

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. 

Spike!

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.

Spike!

>>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.

Bayes

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.

Bayes

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:

gizmotron

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.  :'(

Spike!

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.

Spike!

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.

Spike!

-