Gamblers Fallacy (not what you think)

[MauiSunset]

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.

I can't offer you the help you desperately need - my advice is to seek an anger management professional forthwith.

Since I know you won't do that you must realize that when you proclaim you have invented a new science of reading randomness there will be skeptics - I'm one of them.

It is abundantly clear that you have no new insight into random numbers, have no gambling system that works, loses with any such system, and probably can't pass the age restriction to get into a casino.

You're the one proclaiming this nonsense, you're the one responsible to prove it.  Throwing a temper tantrum might work with your parents but not in an adult world that demands proof to totally insane ideas.....

[gizmotron]

All I ever get from you is that you are scared that I really will share something of value. That makes you Spike the mathboyz. Big whoopy.

[cheese]

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.

You wanna teach and not play mind games? Here's what you do. Go to Dublin.net and tell us what the next bet is. If it wins, tell us why you picked it. If it loses, tell us why you picked it. Do this over and over for days and weeks and people will very quickly catch on. But you can't do that, you have no idea where to place the next bet, all you have is tiresome theory. If you knew where to bet, you'd be doing it.

[darrynf]

so much arguing already.

i think every system relies on gamblers fallacy, even law of the third.

gamblers fallacy about something changing and law of the third is about even distrubution (at least i think) then they are both the same as they both change. if roultette stayed the same then we would all be winners and casinos would no longer be.

if there is a system that dosent change then it would lose, i believe all systems are based on gamblers fallacy, even roulette it self is one big gamblers fallacy (everything changes in roulette), how people think this is not true is beyound me.

i also believe if one colour is constant then its due to change, think about it, has anyone seen 100 reds or blacks in a row, when people talk about this matter they always talk about it from a small sample like 5 blacks, how about 40 or 50 then i would say it will change soon.

anyway thats my thought on this subject

[MauiSunset]

so much arguing already.

I think every system relies on gamblers fallacy, even law of the third.

gamblers fallacy about something changing and law of the third is about even distrubution (at least I think) then they are both the same as they both change. if roultette stayed the same then we would all be winners and casinos would no longer be.

if there is a system that dosent change then it would lose, I believe all systems are based on gamblers fallacy, even roulette it self is one big gamblers fallacy (everything changes in roulette), how people think this is not true is beyound me.

I also believe if one colour is constant then its due to change, think about it, has anyone seen 100 reds or blacks in a row, when people talk about this matter they always talk about it from a small sample like 5 blacks, how about 40 or 50 then I would say it will change soon.

anyway thats my thought on this subject

We actually agree on something - the Gambler's Fallacy is at the heart of 95% of the systems here!

The Law of the Third is just as worthless, in 37 spins you won't have all numbers 0 - 36 showing up; that's the very definition of random numbers - they skip and repeat randomly.

All the systems that rely on the two above concepts are totally worthless - unless you sell one of them for money; then it has a purpose - fraud.

[darrynf]

thats all we agree on mate.

i dont care much for a blackjack player whos says roulette is unbeatable. i can beat it, but for how long i dont know.

keep riding the wave.

[Mr J]

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

Thats fine Kelly, keep chasin the AP dream.  

So my question remains for Kelly and any other AP (cough) fellas. Can you name any betting styles (methods) that are NOT related to past numbers (gamblers fallacy)? So far, we have ZERO. I'll give it a few more days before I really start to post. I'm trying to make a point that the AP (cough) fellas are getting closer to. Just say it, you know you want to. 

Ken

[darrynf]

i remember reading about ap somewhere, something about pretending ?

why do you call people ap mr j ?

thats just insulting people you dont know, i could be wrong and if i am im sorry but it dosent seem very nice any back to the question.

is there a system not based on anything, if there was then it would be purely random, i dont know know of any system.
you wouldnt even call it a system would you, you might as well just pick a number.

[MauiSunset]

Thats fine Kelly, keep chasin the AP dream.  

So my question remains for Kelly and any other AP (cough) fellas. Can you name any betting styles (methods) that are NOT related to past numbers (gamblers fallacy)? So far, we have ZERO. I'll give it a few more days before I really start to post. I'm trying to make a point that the AP (cough) fellas are getting closer to. Just say it, you know you want to.  

Ken

Sure the Maui Sunset system:

Bet as slow as possible, table minimums, and drink as fast as possible.

As far as I know there is no Roulette system out there that beats it.

For your bet just look at the last number spun and look at the seconds on your digital watch - if an even second then bet the last color, if an odd second then bet the opposite color.

If you don't want to use any history then Even seconds is Black and Odd seconds is Red - same results.

Laugh if you want but nobody has demonstrated a more profitable Roulette system - nobody.

Lots of crazy systems, lots of bragging, but no proof.  You can easily repeat my results yourself.....

[darrynf]

what i also fined is people tend to think either law of the third or gamblers fallacy, why not both.

i also know people think the last spin isnt related to the next spin, i believe that as well, i also believe you can trends, well its all really to do with how you play roulette.

why cant people believe all 3 to be true, one thing i do know is math will never beat roulette as the game it self is belt on math and is an amazing math game that cant be beaten by math so it forces people to explore different ways.
i think the game it self is a master piece but its when you dig deep you find things that tend to be 50/50, im not talking about e/c and everyone has there way of play but most dont work.

it really is an amazing game, just not so easey to beat lol

sorry mr j, i know it has nothing to do with what you were asking.

[MauiSunset]

what I also fined is people tend to think either law of the third or gamblers fallacy, why not both.

I also know people think the last spin isnt related to the next spin, I believe that as well, I also believe you can trends, well its all really to do with how you play roulette.

why cant people believe all 3 to be true, one thing I do know is math will never beat roulette as the game it self is belt on math and is an amazing math game that cant be beaten by math so it forces people to explore different ways.
I think the game it self is a master piece but its when you dig deep you find things that tend to be 50/50, im not talking about e/c and everyone has there way of play but most dont work.

it really is an amazing game, just not so easey to beat lol

sorry mr j, I know it has nothing to do with what you were asking.

I don't believe that past random numbers can be used to forecast future spins because a memory is needed.

Where is this memory?  Who controls it?  Just how accurate is that memory?

This is not that unusual - those folks who believe that there is a hereafter also believe memories are stored somewhere - where and how that storage of trillions of neurons takes place is never asked.

It's almost as if it's programmed into our DNA......

[Kelly]

Im pretty sure I know where you are heading ken, you want me to say that advantage players needs past numbers to make their prediction. Yeah well, you just dont know what you are talking about, they need past spins but couldnt care less about the actual numbers. For instance a visual ballistic player who wants to find an average bounce lenght for the ball, he needs past spins but NOT the numbers. He will track that the ball dropped at X spot, could be zero and ended up at 10. Both numbers will be noted but just to get the value between 0 and 10 which is 18. 18 pockets is what goes into the tracking NOT zero or 10.

For someone who talks so much about advantage play you know very little about it, you even talk more about it than I do.

Here is an average bounce chart. You see that the ball can bounce just about all poicket lenghts, so there is no guarantee for a hit in a particular spin so an advantage only comes over a period of spins where you allow the peak to manifest.

The visual player knows roughly where the ball is gonna hit the rotor so he has in this case his bets placed around 20 - 22 pockets away from where the ball first strikes. No reference to past numbers at all.


 

[darrynf]

maui you always get it wrong,

law of the third is about even distrubution and gamblers fallacy is about something changing.

where dose it say anywhere that this has to do with past events or numbers, no where, you piss me off cause your words are shit just like gizmotron, you and giz should start a thread about yourself.

i believe all 3 are true, and you dont need to know the past to work this out, not one of those meanings say anything about past results, get a clue and stop arguing, who cares about your drink and bullshit method.

you have no idea about roulette cause you dont want to know it you just want to slag off everyone and say its impossible to beat cause you cant beat it. and dont bother with your bullshit about prooving anything cause you arent special nor are you worth proving anything to you, stay at your casino get drunk and dont bother with your b.s on here, sick of it. you have nothing worth saying.

this thread just died for me.

[MauiSunset]

maui you always get it wrong,

law of the third is about even distrubution and gamblers fallacy is about something changing.

where dose it say anywhere that this has to do with past events or numbers, no where, you piss me off cause your words are shit just like gizmotron, you and giz should start a thread about yourself.

I believe all 3 are true, and you dont need to know the past to work this out, not one of those meanings say anything about past results, get a clue and stop arguing, who cares about your drink and bullshit method.

you have no idea about roulette cause you dont want to know it you just want to slag off everyone and say its impossible to beat cause you cant beat it. and dont bother with your bullshit about prooving anything cause you arent special nor are you worth proving anything to you, stay at your casino get drunk and dont bother with your b.s on here, sick of it. you have nothing worth saying.

this thread just died for me.

Of course a memory is involved!

Statistics only give us odds - if you want to bastardize that and say that out of 37 spins only 10 numbers showed up then the other 27 numbers must appear or evil consequences will result, go right ahead.

A memory is needed to remember the 10 numbers spun and somehow make the other 27 numbers appear before the first 10 did.

A memory is required.

Now if you want to say that in 1,000,000 spins all 37 will show up evenly that's perfectly ok - but there is no way to use that to our advantage.

Gambler's Fallacy is exactly the same - 10 reds show up and then 10 blacks must appear - a memory is needed for the 10 reds.

This is all a crock - both Gambler's Fallacy and the third thing - totally garbage....

[bombus]

I have a friend who does better than maui.

He walks up to the table and throws down his rewards card with $1000 for chips.

The dealer puts his card in the machine then he just walks around the games room jiggling his chips for an hour or so, every now and then leans over a busy table and pretends to bet.

After an hour or so he collects his rewards card and cashes in his chips for $1000.

Goes and has lunch then returns to do the same thing over again.

This guy gets free drinks, free meal vouchers, vip rate accomodation, free parking, etc, and he almost never makes a single bet.

The guy's a champion!  

[bombus]

-