What Does Gamblers Fallacy Mean To You?

[Kelly]

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.

[gizmotron]

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.

[gizmotron]

Read this:

[Spike!]

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.

[Bayes]

Just 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.

[Spike!]

 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.

[Spike!]

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!

[MATTJONO]

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

[I have cookies]

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!

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

[bombus]

@ 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.

[Nathan Detroit]

On post #17  is my breakfast cereal.  .

[I have cookies]

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

[I have cookies]

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

[bombus]

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.

[I have cookies]

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.

I agree to that  

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   with one bet 100K  

[I have cookies]

-