Gambler's Fallacy vs Even Distribution

[birdhands]

Can some math whiz please explain to me how it's gambler's fallacy to expect red after 20 blacks when red and black are always moving toward an even distribution?

[bombus]

Can some math whiz please explain to me how it's gambler's fallacy to expect red after 20 blacks when red and black are always moving toward an even distribution?

The longer the game goes on the closer red & black come to 50/50, but at the same time the gap will widen.   

[pins]

the wheel has no memory.

[darrynf]

the wheel has no memory.

in a land base casino thats true

not on a online casino.

[col1879]

***************The longer the game goes on the closer red & black come to 50/50, but at the same time the gap will widen.**************

i cannot get my head around that. Kind of like trying to pat my head and rub my belly at the same time! Or Klingon!

p.s. I like Star Trek

[darrynf]

lol

I like star track, the last movie was pretty cool.

i agree with that guy about the coulors getting wider over time, you dont have to get your head around it or even understand it, it just happens.

its the same for sections as well, it just seems to go that way thats why you will never win using progression and a table max dosnt help either.

thats why you shoulnt play long sessions and thats why people lose, well im guessing but it sounds right.

[ISpin2Win]

I saw a good answer to this on another forum which I have copied here. . . . . . .
hxxp: bit. ly/exMbtC
Re: What are the odds the same after 10 reds?

I think the key thing to realise here what you are betting on.  If you are betting that the red comes up on the next spins after 19 blacks, then it is a mutually exclusive event.  Your odds are 50/50 (less actually because of the 0 pocket).

If you bet on 20 spins, that´s different.  For example, if you bet that the last colour would be black if all preceding colours were red over the course of 20 spins, then you´d be looking at a very different scenario.

But you never bet over multiple spins in roulette.  Just one.

I always find a few scenarios are useful to think about.

What about if you saw 19 blacks in a row.  Then the casino closed.  You came back 12 hours later- same wheel, same table.  And you bet red.  Are your odds any better? What´s the difference between this and betting on red immediately after you saw 19 blacks? Just time right? So what if we vary the time between spins- made it faster, slower etc.  Does that change our odds?

What about if you saw 2 blacks in a row.  Now you switch wheels (the original wheel stays unused).  Now you see 17 blacks in a row on the second wheel, and then you flip back to the first wheel.  What are your odds now of seeing a red? Better than before? Worse?

You can think about a whole bunch of scenrios that demonstrate that, no, for a single spin, there are 18 reds and 18 blacks and 1green zero (in european roulette at least.  So your little ball spinning around has as much chance of landing in a red pocket as a black one.  And a small chance of landing in the 0 pocket.

[Kelly]

The longer the spin sequenze, the more baffled people gets by probabilitys and gamblers fallacy.

The secret is in the spin sample lenght.  You get X probability for 20 Reds but you get the same probability for 10 blacks and then 10 reds = 20 spins. The longer the spin sample the smaller is the probability that this exact constellation happens. It still does not change that next spin isolated is 50/50.

If you had just witnessed 20 reds, you wouldnt know wether red now was 20 ahead or it now broke even because it was 20 behind before thid happened. 

"I could just track the last 300 spins and i would know" ...... No you wouldn`t because what is the status for the last 500 or 1000 ? Or 3000 ?

You simply wouldnt know and it wont affect your hitrate.

[geoff365]

nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion

[birdhands]

The secret is in the spin sample lenght.  You get X probability for 20 Reds but you get the same probability for 10 blacks and then 10 reds = 20 spins.

God this stuff is really breaking my brain.  Are you saying that 20 reds in a row and 10 reds then 10 blacks both have the same probability of happening?

[Mike]

@ birdhands, yes that's right. All sequences of the same length have the same probability.

@ kelly,

You simply wouldnt know and it wont affect your hitrate.

But even if you DID know it wouldn't affect it either. It sounds like you're saying that the only reason why you won't win is because you don't know what came before, but this sounds like the gamblers fallacy to me. 

Even if you knew the complete spin history of a wheel it wouldn't help in picking the next bet.

[Kelly]

@Mike, maybe it came out wrong but i think you got my drift :-)

@Birdshands, thats right. There is nothing exceptional in 20 Reds or at least it is not more exceptional than RRRRBBBBRRRRBBBBRRRR or any other 20 spin sequenz. If you take a large number of permanencies and analyse them you will roughly find  the same amount of each spin sequnz, give and take.

[gizmotron]

Can some math whiz please explain to me how it's gambler's fallacy to expect red after 20 blacks when red and black are always moving toward an even distribution?

The problem with fallacy is not understanding the math. The math proves that expectation is non existent. It can't be counted on in the short term and especially in the long run. The next spin can produce the straight up odds for one spin only and that is all. A statistical averaging can never conjure up expectations or predictions that are accurate. So that leaves you with beliefs only. The fallacies are made up from constructs cobbled together from memories of your own experiences. There are even beliefs so strong as to be identified as magical beliefs by those that study the thinking of problem gamblers. It is one thing to use those constructs as tools. I do that. But at no time do I count on expectation or prediction as a fact. Fallacy is a mistake if you count on it for a magical statistical belief. And that is where problems occur for those that first fall into its attractive deception. It's an acquired skill to ignore magical belief systems. The only way is by experience and discipline.

[Mike]

The problem with fallacy is not understanding the math. The math proves that expectation is non existent. It can't be counted on in the short term and especially in the long run.

Expectation IS the long run average value of the results, which definitely CAN be counted on. The mistake is in thinking that they apply to short term sequences. There is NO "balancing" effect you can rely on.

[Mike]

It is one thing to use those constructs as tools. I do that. But at no time do I count on expectation or prediction as a fact.

What does this mean? what use is a "tool" that can't be relied on because it's based on a fallacy? 

[Mike]

-