Gamblers Fallacy (not what you think)

[Mike]

If a roulette/casino gambling author was writing a book, would you agree >>>  When he wrote about 'gamblers fallacy', we are reading HIS past experiences, HIS views on the subject, HIS definition, HIS opinions. True or not? (Yes I know, he could be doing some interviews etc. asking other players.)

Ken

No, Gambler's Fallacy is not opinion, it's a fact.

"...is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process, future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely."

Anyone can prove for themselves that this is false. Just find a sequence where there are a lot of blacks and see if there are a greater than expected number of reds following it, then do the same thing after a sequence where there are an average number of blacks. In every case you will find that the number of reds is on average the same.

This will be the case whoever does it, and no matter how many times. If that doesn't prove it's not just an opinion, I don't know what does.

There are plenty of methods and systems which aren't based on GF, but they are still fallacies. If you believe that sequences come in trends and you are more likely to win by following the trend, that's called the inverse gambler's fallacy.

If you believe that some patterns are more likely than others, and try to design a system around that, this is also a fallacy because ALL patterns are equally likely, but it's not gambler's fallacy.

Gambler's believe all kinds of nonsense, there is a list of some fallacies here:

nolinks://nolinks.math.byu.edu/~jarvis/gambling/gambling-fallacies.html

How many times have you heard this one on gambling forums?

    * Quit while you are ahead each time and you'll never lose: (i.e., keep chasing your lost money until you recover it.) This belief is a hallmark of pathological gamblers.

[Mr J]

"No, Gambler's Fallacy is not opinion, it's a fact" >>> And thats fine, also knowing that AP (cough) is another form of gamblers fallacy. 

Ken

[birdhands]

Back to the original question.  I was a philosophy major back in college and the one thing I learned from it was that logic is a tool used by humans to justify the conclusions they've  already come to, which are non-logical and usually the result of emotional and psychological factors.  Of course the opinion I'm expressing right now is subject to the same dynamics.

Sam

[Kelly]

Good one ken, you just made it public that you don`t know what either of the 2 terms means.

[MauiSunset]

The sad truth is without Gambler's Fallacy there is little to talk about on Roulette chatrooms.

Basing a gambling system on math/statistics that is taught in school only allows folks to build Money Management systems.

I must confess reading some of the squirrelly, insane, and convoluted, systems based on Gambler's Fallacy is entertainment for me - better than watching TV.

But I can't sit around and let rookie gamblers read this dribble and lose money only to find out that there is nothing to any of the systems based on Gambler's Fallacy - to say nothing would be diabolical.....

[Nathan Detroit]

...................then this without any doubt  would  also include TURBO`S  from the furthest back.

[Mike]

Back to the original question.  I was a philosophy major back in college and the one thing I learned from it was that logic is a tool used by humans to justify the conclusions they've  already come to, which are non-logical and usually the result of emotional and psychological factors.  Of course the opinion I'm expressing right now is subject to the same dynamics.

Sam

That's one use of logic, but it can't be the only one. That's a bad misuse of logic and if it were true then there would be no science or technology. Logic and evidence is all we have to stay in touch with reality, which isn't only something we construct (as the Postmodernists would have it) but something independent of us.

[Mike]

Good one ken, you just made it public that you don`t know what either of the 2 terms means.

[gizmotron]

I said all strategies based on past numbers is gamblers fallacy, why is that hard to read ?

Let's see if that holds true for all conditions. Someone sees 15 reds so black is due, this thinking = fallacy.

But someone else sees a streak of singles change to several continuous groupings of repeated reds then blacks. A dominate absence of singles is what it has changed to. So is the observation of seeing what is currently happening a fallacy if observing what is happening is the goal and not determining something is due? What if someone also observed that for the past two hours changes occur that tend to last for 20 to 30 spins in their type before changing to the other type, like from singles dominant to doubles, triples, etc...

[cheese]

So is the observation of seeing what is currently happening a fallacy if observing what is happening is the goal and not determining something is due?

Who cares if something is due or not? The whole point of observing is to look for a clue as to where to place the next bet. Fallacies are irrelevant, all anybody should care about is the next bet. Do I have to drag you thru all of this AGAIN? Once was enough..

[MauiSunset]

Let's see if that holds true for all conditions. Someone sees 15 reds so black is due, this thinking = fallacy.

But someone else sees a streak of singles change to several continuous groupings of repeated reds then blacks. A dominate absence of singles is what it has changed to. So is the observation of seeing what is currently happening a fallacy if observing what is happening is the goal and not determining something is due? What if someone also observed that for the past two hours changes occur that tend to last for 20 to 30 spins in their type before changing to the other type, like from singles dominant to doubles, triples, etc...

Say what?

Gambler's Fallacy is based upon God keeping score - how many reds and how many blacks and God must then produce the opposite color or the universe will end.  Poor God, what a mess he's gotten himself into.

Do you guys really believe in this stuff?

Gamblers Fallacy requires a memory of past results and that's a totally insane idea; its a fallacy....

[gizmotron]

Who cares if something is due or not? The whole point of observing is to look for a clue as to where to place the next bet. Fallacies are irrelevant, all anybody should care about is the next bet. Do I have to drag you thru all of this AGAIN? Once was enough..

Don't get too big a head there Spike. I was asking a question of Kelly who generalized that "I said all strategies based on past numbers is gamblers fallacy, why is that hard to read ?"

I was attempting to get him to admit that there might be another reason for looking at past spins. But this is interesting too. You see all this as another opportunity for you to slip another clue into the mix. Another empty clue that you are unwilling to explain in detail I'll bet. Why don't you drag all of us through this one more time. I got real news for you. Your long time hunch that even if you explain this to others they wouldn't be able to do it very well is actually true. Don't believe me. Try it. You can explain reading randomness to them and they will struggle with it.

[gizmotron]

Say what?

Gambler's Fallacy is based upon God keeping score - how many reds and how many blacks and God must then produce the opposite color or the universe will end.  Poor God, what a mess he's gotten himself into.

Do you guys really believe in this stuff?

Gamblers Fallacy requires a memory of past results and that's a totally insane idea; its a fallacy....

You are so far in the O-Zone that it's best just to leave you in it.

Anyone can see that you know less about God than you do about the current state of randomness from a live Roulette wheel. In a way that's a sin and you are already on the road to Roulette hell. This is great too. You do this for entertainment purposes, like a break from skiing.

[MauiSunset]

You are so far in the O-Zone that it's best just to leave you in it.

Anyone can see that you know less about God than you do about the current state of randomness from a live Roulette wheel. In a way that's a sin and you are already on the road to Roulette hell. This is great too. You do this for entertainment purposes, like a break from skiing.

Jeez don't insult me - I'm a snowboarder and not a skier.

All you guys have to do is supply a link (Not to a fellow UFO website) where we can read about patterns in random numbers and how they then forecast the future.

There are no links and this is all jibberish.

You guys to proclaim all this nonsense can't demo any of your theories or concepts - that should be simple as pie if they actually existed.  You don't have to give away your system, just a demo of how this all works.

The future can't be forecasted from the past with much success - if that were possible, the same folks would be winning the PowerBall Lottery every week.  The future is unknown and can be virtually anything.

Beyond the sun rising each day what other predictions happen with enough certainty that you are willing to bet money on?

Mother Nature works on simplicity - everything in this world is simplifying as it evolves - Roulette systems based upon all kinds of complicated ideas will never work - if there is anyway to beat Roulette it will be very very simple.

That hasn't happened in 300 years of Roulette's history and I doubt it will ever happen.

[gizmotron]

Jeez don't insult me - I'm a snowboarder and not a skier.

Yeah! You are a snow boarder OK. You are probably dragged behind a truck to plow the parking lot. You know what a snow boarder is? Someone that sleeps on a stick. You guys earned nothing. One edge is like that pathetic thing you whip out once in a while. You will never have the life experience that I already been there and done that.  I've always kept back on your kind. But you are a perfect target. So enjoy your grand outdoor wilderness experience, yep that's right, a pathetic weenie roast. That's all you are.

[gizmotron]

-