Gambler's Fallacy vs Even Distribution

[gizmotron]

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.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. When was the last time you played a real session for a million spins, or a thousand for that matter? I think you are saying that fallacies don't apply to short termed sequences. On that we agree.

[gizmotron]

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

Because it's a construct not based on fallacy or belief or expectation. It's the use of figure formations. The formations are meaningless. I just use them for bet selections. It really doesn't matter how they perform as long as they take on the characteristics of randomness. The point is to determine the current state of the conditions. It takes tools and a capacity to comprehend what is happening in order to take advantage.

[MauiSunset]

The Gamblers' Fallacy is probably the greatest thing a casino ever invented - I'm assuming they encourage folks to think this way - dealers talking about something not showing up for a long time or the marque showing a Red hasn't shown up for 20 spins.

I see folks just do stupid things like betting on something because "it should even up" - this means they believe someone keeps score somewhere.  Maybe there are gambling elves who don't spend the year making toys but keeping track of all dice, cards, Roulette wheels, ping pong balls at the lotto, etc.

I see it here - 95% of the "systems" folks tout or talk about are based on the idea that "something is overdo to occur".

Doesn't matter if it's a Red or the #7 on dice or 10/high cards in Blackjack folks keep track of things that are "overdo".

There is no elf keeping track of what you do - that Roulette wheel has no idea that it has spun 100 times and the "0" hasn't shown up.

So remove the idea that elves run the gaming industry and you will realize that the only thing left is money management and there are hundreds of schemes there to learn and use.

[gizmotron]

So can twenty-two  blacks in a row happen?

Can one of the columns or dozens repeat six times in a row?

Can one dozen only hit once every three spins for 30 spins in a row?

[MauiSunset]

So can twenty-two  blacks in a row happen?

Can one of the columns or dozens repeat six times in a row?

Can one dozen only hit once every three spins for 30 spins in a row?

Theoretically yes - I'm sure any mathematician will tell you the odds.

I have seen 9 blackjacks/21 in a row in Vegas - all from the house.  It was at a BJ machine and I have a rule to sit out every BJ that the dealer gets or machine gets - so I watched folks just go crazy.

They betted more and more "it can't happen again" and more until all of them were wiped out - just one guy continued who betted flat and he finally saw the end.

Strings of random events happen all the time and you have to decide if you believe in the Gamblers' Fallacy.  I don't but I have seen so many crazy things happen that I just sit out BJs because in an evening of playing BJ I will see the dealer easily get 3 maybe 4 in a row.  9 I've only seen once in years of playing BJ - I cashed out after 5, I didn't want any part of that machine)

I use a random event to guide me with playing Red/Black (my watch trick) and I've seen the Marque all Black or all Red many times - I see folks pulling their hair out - they believe in the Gamblers' Fallacy.

[MauiSunset]

All of those things can happen again and again at ANYTIME. The problem with virtually EVERY method I have seen players employ to try and best the random beast. Is 1, they try to outlive a losing streak using the fatal Martingale progression. Or a similar aggressive staking plan.

And 2, they don't identify an occurance that isn't SPECIAL. Its NORMAL. Trying to outlive a losing streak has been the undoing of virtualyl every method and player to try and beat this game. I put it forward Roulette is random. But take those spins and confine them to a set number ALL THE TIME. For severe scrutiny and you will see how roulette bows to the law of averages. And from these observations you then have SERIOUS data to formulate a method to decode the game.

MATRIX 50 is such a method. No maths geek, or Even Einstein himself could ever tell me roulette is unbeatable ever again. I know its not FOR CERTAIN. And tomorrow the members of this site will start to see it too...

I love to watch folks play Roulette - it's probably the craziest table game to play.  I can't understand the logic of losing and betting more to make up for that loss.  When you lose you screwed up in Black Jack or luck was not with you in Roulette.  To then bet more on a loss indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of random events - you can't will them to help you.

Gambling is all about the thrill of an uncontrollable outcome, and it once in a while favoring you.  To then decide to take an unfavorable outcome and exploit it, by betting more, is beyond my understanding.

[darrynf]

short term+short term+short term= long term, period!


if it dosent work long term then it wont work short term.

[birdhands]

@Kelly and Mike,
    First off, let me begin by saying that I'm pretty sure you guys are right.  It's just that I can't shake this feeling that we're all missing something.  Maybe my right-brain orientation is just shooting me in the foot; I don't know.  But you guys are saying that, given say 1000 groups of 20 numbers each, there will be just as many instances of 20 reds as there will be instances of 10 reds and 10 blacks?  And what about 10,000 groups of 100 numbers each?  Who has ever seen 50 reds in a row, let alone 100?  And yet I'm sure we've all seen 50 reds and 50 blacks.  I think someone made a distinction between the kind of distribution we can expect to see in a group vs. a single spin; maybe that's where I'm confused.  In any case, I want to thank you all for responding to this thread and helping me work through this dilemma.

Sam

[MauiSunset]

short term+short term+short term= long term, period!


if it dosent work long term then it wont work short term.

Flip a coin and make Heads = +1 and Tails = -1 and plot the running total.  The resulting chart will look EXACTLY like a stock chart - if you leave off the labels of the X and Y axis there is NO way to tell a stock chart from a random flip of a coin chart.

The DJIA has a "natural buoyancy" of 12% per year for 120+ years; on top of that throw in 100% random price movement and you have the DJIA on any one day.  80% of all 10,000+ stocks around the world (major markets) correlate to the DJIA - that's why I just buy one stock - the SPY, S&P 500 "Spider".  I have an indicator that took me 25+ years to figure out and it gets me in and out about once every 4 years or so.

In the world of casino games there is no natural "buoyancy" to the random events.  In the long long run, like 100 years or millions transactions the mathematical odds show up.  In the short run of 100 or less events they are poorly represented.  I'm sure a mathematician can tell us how many Roulette spins are needed to be statistically confident (95%) that the correct odds are being reflected in that set - probably close to 200+ is my guess.

So taking a set of short random events and using them with another short set is meaningless - they won't approach the true mathematical percentages.

In addition to that, throw in the house advantage and you have a mishmash of gibberish that can only get you into trouble.

[MauiSunset]

@Kelly and Mike,
   First off, let me begin by saying that I'm pretty sure you guys are right.  It's just that I can't shake this feeling that we're all missing something.  Maybe my right-brain orientation is just shooting me in the foot; I don't know.  But you guys are saying that, given say 1000 groups of 20 numbers each, there will be just as many instances of 20 reds as there will be instances of 10 reds and 10 blacks?  And what about 10,000 groups of 100 numbers each?  Who has ever seen 50 reds in a row, let alone 100?  And yet I'm sure we've all seen 50 reds and 50 blacks.  I think someone made a distinction between the kind of distribution we can expect to see in a group vs. a single spin; maybe that's where I'm confused.  In any case, I want to thank you all for responding to this thread and helping me work through this dilemma.

Sam

The ONLY thing statistics can tell us is that the chance of any number showing up is 1/37 for a European Roulette wheel - period.  

Beyond that it's wishful thinking that makes up all the systems out there.  There is no more math to help us on individual bets.  Spin the wheel a million times and sure Red will show up 18/37 times or 48.64864% as will Black.

That's all math says; nothing more.  All these systems out there rely on junk science to work.....

[Mike]

@Kelly and Mike,
    First off, let me begin by saying that I'm pretty sure you guys are right.  It's just that I can't shake this feeling that we're all missing something.  Maybe my right-brain orientation is just shooting me in the foot; I don't know.  But you guys are saying that, given say 1000 groups of 20 numbers each, there will be just as many instances of 20 reds as there will be instances of 10 reds and 10 blacks?  And what about 10,000 groups of 100 numbers each?  Who has ever seen 50 reds in a row, let alone 100?  And yet I'm sure we've all seen 50 reds and 50 blacks.  I think someone made a distinction between the kind of distribution we can expect to see in a group vs. a single spin; maybe that's where I'm confused.  In any case, I want to thank you all for responding to this thread and helping me work through this dilemma.

Sam

The reason you don't believe it is that you're confusing 2 different kinds of sequence. The probability of 5 spins like BB R BB
is calculated by 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 (5 times) which gives you 1/32.

This takes the ORDER into account of the way the colours came in. But if you don't take the order into account, then the probability of getting only 1 red in 5 spins is NOT 1/32, but 5/32, because there are 5 ways that you can get only 1 red in 5 spins, ie; R BBBB,  B R BBB, BB R BB, BBB R B, or BBBB R.

So although no-one is ever likely to see 50 reds in a row, it's just as likely that you will never see any other sequence of 50 spins with the colours in a particular order either. I could write a program which will let you input a sequence, say,

RRBBRRRRRBRBRRRBRBBRRRBBRRRBRRBRRBRBBRBRRBRRRBBBBB and I can guarantee that you can search over millions of spins and you won't find an exact match.

[Mike]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. When was the last time you played a real session for a million spins, or a thousand for that matter? I think you are saying that fallacies don't apply to short termed sequences. On that we agree.

It sounded like you were saying that the long-term stats aren't accurate, but I see you were saying something different. Yes, you can't "count on" the stats in the sense of making a profit from them, because we can only bet on 1 spin at a time and not 100 or a 1000. But even if we COULD do that, the casino would adjust the payouts on such bets so that it would still be a negative expectation game.

[Mike]

Because it's a construct not based on fallacy or belief or expectation. It's the use of figure formations. The formations are meaningless. I just use them for bet selections. It really doesn't matter how they perform as long as they take on the characteristics of randomness. The point is to determine the current state of the conditions. It takes tools and a capacity to comprehend what is happening in order to take advantage.

You admit that the figure formations are meaningless, so how can you use them to get a better than expected hit rate? it makes no sense.  

If they are meaningless and therefore subjective, according to you we could all be choosing different formations and we would all be winning, which is absurd.  The current state of the conditions cannot ever tell you what is going to happen in future spins. The fact that you claim to be winning using them (if true) must mean that some states lead to other states with a higher probability, but this is contradicted by the math and every empirical study. You simply cannot side-step probability.  

[Mike]

There is no such thing as GAMBLERS FALLACY. What there is indeed are weak methods applied to try and beat the game of roulette. Poor use of money management. And zero discipline as when to snipe a game or session.

Once you know what to expect the vast majority of the time and apply supreme money management to it. You will have the game beaten. Enter THE MATRIX 50. I will present it tomorrow. Once AND FOR ALL THE ARGUMENT TO WHETHER A STRATEGY/METHOD/SYSTEM can beat the random monster known as ROULETTE will be layed to rest.

100 spins, 1,000 spins, 1 trillion spins. Will make no difference. MATRIX 50 decodes roulette....

PHASE2, there are no weak methods and strong methods, there are only failing methods. ALL methods fail. The idea that you can make a profit just by manipulating stakes is common, but entirely fallacious. All professionals have to come to a more sophisticated understanding of the mechanisms involved. The key idea is that of VALUE. Value means that the probability of your bet winning is higher than that which is used to calculate the payout. It's as simple as that. Fancy staking schemes will not affect this one iota, neither will statistics, because the payouts are actually calculated from the statistics! The logic is irrefutable.

[MauiSunset]

PHASE2, there are no weak methods and strong methods, there are only failing methods. ALL methods fail. The idea that you can make a profit just by manipulating stakes is common, but entirely fallacious. All professionals have to come to a more sophisticated understanding of the mechanisms involved. The key idea is that of VALUE. Value means that the probability of your bet winning is higher than that which is used to calculate the payout. It's as simple as that. Fancy staking schemes will not affect this one iota, neither will statistics, because the payouts are actually calculated from the statistics! The logic is irrefutable.

I would go even further and say that the game of Roulette, especial the stupid American version, should be played for entertainment purposes only - everything is against you in this table game.

If you play the binary bets and use a European wheel you can have fun watching folks being stupid - I mean the only reason I play Roulette is to watch the folks who play - it is hilarious; a break in my night of playing Blackjack where you stand a much better chance of having a profitable night.

If you use a mild form of money management an hour playing Roulette should not cost you that much and worth the fun of watching folks looking at the Marque and trying to figure out random numbers; and then watching them bust.  I can't get enough of it..........(I do have a dark side to me)

[MauiSunset]

-