Yet Another Form of Gamblers Fallacy!

[Spike!]

What the hell are you talking about? It's not a question of people agreeing what it is. There is one definition of the gambler's fallacy, I can't help it if people don't understand it.

Still waiting for those 'other versions'... 

But they feel the same way when you don't understand theirs, don't you see? I posted a list of other versions last week, my favorite is just believeing you can win is GF. The big blanket theory..

[Bayes]

There is not 'theirs' and 'mine', there is just what there is. At the top of this thread you posted what you believed was a 'version' of GF, but wasn't.

You seem to live in world where there is no objective truth, it's just dog eat dog, opinions and egos battling against each other. That's pretty sad.

[mistarlupo]

Whether or not it is GF/IGF by the book, it is again a fallacy. We might be fooled by randomness in many ways.

There are lots of other ways you can tackle roulette without committing the gambler's fallacy, and I'm not just talking about AP.

Well, glad you have 'lots' of options, I would say just few in my notebook but none of them practical. For now. So yeah, I agree on that not everything is gambler's fallacy.

[Spike!]

There is not 'theirs' and 'mine', there is just what there is. At the top of this thread you posted what you believed was a 'version' of GF, but wasn't.

You seem to live in world where there is no objective truth, it's just dog eat dog, opinions and egos battling against each other. That's pretty sad.

Stop it, Bayes, I'm laughing so hard I can't see the keyboard. You think its SAD that everybody doesn't agree with you and I think its funny? You MathBoyz really do have a religion, thats just what a religious Christian says when you don't accept Jesus. They feel 'sad' for you, boo hoo. You can't nail gambling down, everybody seems to have their own unprovable viewpoint, just like a religion. Sad indeed..

[Bayes]

You think its SAD that everybody doesn't agree with you and I think its funny?

You just don't get it. It's not about me or anyone's opinion. 

[Bayes]

Well, glad you have 'lots' of options, I would say just few in my notebook but none of them practical.

Yes, just a few. 

[mistarlupo]

 

[Spike!]

Its not about who's right or wrong or who's practical. Its about confusion. You say 'poor Spike, he never understands'. I say POOR YOU, its obvious that there are so many points of view on the subject because so much is left open to intrerpretation. If we were discussing the principles of flight, those are LAWS, there wouldn't be 10 different opinions. But the 'laws' of gambling are so squishy, so wishy washy, that it invites different 'schools' of thought. And just like a religion, you find each other and hang out, so you can give each other reassurance.

Everything I do, every bet I make violates some form of somebodys Gamblers Fallacy. So to me, YOUR version of GF, to me, is in itself the real GF. Because whatever magical powers you think past results have because their independent, ain't true. Very funny indeed...

[Kelly]

Again spike, according to you 99% of the world population must be math boys because they don`t believe past spins shows you anything.  I haven`t seen anyone around here show me that past spins have any relevans, have you ?

  There are some low intelligences sqeeking about something big (cough), but i don`t know what it is, because they keep running away when i ask them to show me that the entire world is wrong in their beliefs.

Im an open mind, i will believe you if you can prove everyone wrong, but thats not gonna happen, i wonder why.     

[Spike!]

There are some low intelligences speaking about something big (cough), >>

[Bayes]

Again, you're appealing to others points of view to justify your agenda. Just because something isn't well understood by the lay public doesn't mean its invalidated. People who are ignorant of the laws of flight may well have different opinions, but only one set of them will be correct (the 'opinions' which correspond to the reality of flight).

You're demanding that probability be able to predict a future random event, otherwise it's useless, of no value whatsoever. Do you realise how absurd that is?

whatever magical powers you think past results have because their independent, ain't true.

What a laugh. YOU are the one giving past results magical powers. Somehow the universe has mysteriously preordained a particular outcome as being more likely than another, even though physically every possible outcome is equally likely, and you have the ability to tune into it.

[bombus]

Is this GF?


You take 4 groups of 9 numbers and watch the first spin.

Let's say group 1 hits. At this point, which of the 4 groups is more likely to hit twice in the next 3 spins?

You watch another spin.

Let's say group 2 hits. At this point, which of the 4 groups is more likely to hit twice in the next 2 spins?

[Spike!]

You're demanding that probability be able to predict a future random event,>>

No, I'm demanding to know how probability effects the next spin or the next 100 spins. If the answer is 'not at all', then don't bother me with it. Because I keep up with the wheel on a spin to spin basis, probability has no effect on what I do at all. If thats boring, oh well. The truth tends to bore people..

[Kelly]

You are right, probability doesn`t affect our play either, so why do you keep bringing it up if we all agree ?

[Nathan Detroit]

Spike,

This poster  of the  liberal surely is right on the money !!!!

The  only  question remaining  : What is a good  liberal

Nathan Detroit

[Nathan Detroit]

-