Some Forms of Gamblers Fallacy Are WRONG!

[Spike!]

These forms of Gamblers Falacy are true:

[The belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations]

[The Gambler's Fallacy is committed when a person assumes that a departure from what occurs on average or in the long term will be corrected in the short term. ]

[The gambler's fallacy is the mistaken notion that the odds for something with a fixed probability increase or decrease depending upon recent occurrences.]

[The gambler's fallacy is the fallacy of assuming that short-term deviations from probability will be corrected in the short-term.]

[The idea that events can be "due" is known as the Gambler's Fallacy.]

I agree with all these forms of Gamblers Fallacy, nothing is due, nothing will even out in the short term.  This is the one I disagree with:

{Anybody who thinks that he can record the results of a roulette wheel and use this information to predict future outcomes is committing gambler's fallacy. A list of random numbers is such that one cannot predict better than chance based upon a knowledge of the previous outcomes.}

Not true and not provable. Its in the shady grey area of math, the region nobody wants to venture into. You can't take every theory and stamp Gamblers Fallacy on it. Nothing is due, I agree. That can be proven. I played at the casino today for 3 hours and proved to them that you can do better than chance by looking at previous outcomes.
You can't prove with math that I didn't, all you have is faulty theory. One persons gamblers fallacy is another man's belly laugh.

[Davey-Jones]

I played at the casino today for 3 hours

Wow! 3 hours? What do you want? A medal?

[Spike!]

It wasn't a full 3 hours, 45min of it was dinner. I usually play for exactly 2 hours. I make my goal and stay till I have 2 hours worth of actuals to transfer to Xtreme when I get home.

[Davey-Jones]

hahahaha! You crack me up!

[Bayes]

Nope. Wrong again:

The reversal is also a fallacy, the reverse 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. [Wikipedia: Gambler's Fallacy]

BTW, I think a visit to the dentist is in order, better start saving while you're still on solids!

[Spike!]

The reversal is also a fallacy, the reverse gambler's fallacy,>>

So going forwards its a fallacy, going backwards its a fallacy, every which ways you look its fallacies galore! None of it proved by math, none of it provable at all. Don't look at those past results, they lead to wickedness and doom. (and money)

What a crock of pickled baloney. You guys crack me up. LOL!

[Bayes]

So going forwards its a fallacy, going backwards its a fallacy, every which ways you look its fallacies galore!

Now you're learning!  

[Spike!]

Now you're learning!  

Everywhere you look its fallacies, leaving the casino after cashing out you have to watch not to trip over the damn things. Its a fricking obstacle course..

[Jakkalsdraai]

Jeez this is boring. Same ol same ol.

The whole forum hi-jacked by Spike.

[Spike!]

Jeez this is boring. Same ol same ol.

The whole forum hi-jacked by Spike.

WOW! The WHOLE forum? I usually only post in threads I start, I must be really powerful, huh. Why don't you start some interesting threads and I promise I'll ignore them. 

[Jean-Claud]

Spike take the pink pill take the pink pill!

U messed up the pills again!

[Jakkalsdraai]

The pink one with "arcenic" imprinted on it! Please! 

[Mr J]

"So going forwards its a fallacy, going backwards its a fallacy, every which ways you look its fallacies galore" >>> Like I said in the past. Anyway 'they' dont play, is gamblers fallacy. lol  Ken

[Mr J]

-