Is a method based on probability ALSO the same as gamblers fallacy?

[Mr J]

Before anyone blows chunks from their mouth, this question was not originally mine. Another poster brought it up and I was thinking about this all day.

If your method is somehow based on probability (back to definitions again), would that be the same as gamblers fallacy/due?

Ken

[Psolaras]

Ok I will reply to this Topic with respeact.
 Yes  a method based on probability is ALSO the same as gamblers fallacy.
The word "Gamblers Fallacy" WAS BORN from the consept of winning with the help of the probability!

PROBABILITY GF  examples:

1)After X reds we expect a black to hit
2)In 37 spins cycle "this" will happen
3)after X misses in a Dozen then more luckily in the next spins this Dozen will hit

ETC...........

As you all know all the systems that are based on probability are losers.

And I will say this once again :

The word "Gamblers Fallacy" WAS BORN from the consept of winning with the help of the probability!

[Mr J]

Ok, very good reply. Thanks!

Ken

[gizmotron]

Is a method based on probability ALSO the same as gamblers fallacy?

Here's my 2 cents:

Frequentist View of Probability, then yes, it counts on something being due. (Frequentist Statistical Theory)

Bayesian View of Probability, then no, it does not factor in anything being due.

[GogoCro]

Let say to a play roulette without zero: probability to hit a black is 50:50.
So that what probability have nothing to do with previus results, its just calculating odds with strict mathematical equation.
So that is NOT extension to some advantage and then is not GF.
I am speaking about probability on one independad spin which have nothing to do with past or future spins. Of course that if some collaretation is made bettwen past results and due that past results is applayed some wrongly probability calculation then that is GF.

[Zindrod]

As long as probability has nothing to do with previous spins it isn't GF.

Gogocro is right. If every spins is seen as a new event (which it is) then in 100 spins time the probability is still 50/50 on an EC (Bar the 0)

[Mike]

Ok I will reply to this Topic with respeact.
 Yes  a method based on probability is ALSO the same as gamblers fallacy.
The word "Gamblers Fallacy" WAS BORN from the consept of winning with the help of the probability!

PROBABILITY GF  examples:

1)After X reds we expect a black to hit
2)In 37 spins cycle "this" will happen
3)after X misses in a Dozen then more luckily in the next spins this Dozen will hit

ETC...........

As you all know all the systems that are based on probability are losers.

And I will say this once again :

The word "Gamblers Fallacy" WAS BORN from the consept of winning with the help of the probability!

It's more a case of GF being born from a MISUNDERSTANDING of probability. People tend to think that outcomes in a sequence of spins should be the same as the AVERAGE result given in the long term, no matter how long the sequence. They don't take into account variability. The law of large numbers says that in the long run the average outcome is the same as the expected outcome, meaning that in many thousands of coin flips the ratio of heads/tails will be 50%. People think there is a "law of small numbers" (they call it the law of averages), but there isn't.

[Psolaras]

All kinds of PROBABILITY have been tested through the years (400 years) from all the best mathimaticians .
 Noone could ever win this game with any kind of probability.
the proof is that the game still stands in the Casinos as a money maker machine from them.

Having hopes is a completely defferent thing than what is happening in reality.

If someone will claim that Roulette can indeed been beaten with a certain way ,then he has to proove it...he must have proofs!
If He just say that he can beat Roulette but he doesn t say the way....then he is just an other lier of a roulette forum.
  All the old members that are in roulette forums for more than 4 years ,they have all seen that every single person that claimed to be a long run winner was either a lier (for entertaintment or pride) or a scam that wanted to make money from selling his scamming system.

And the last thing that I have to say is that :

If there were indeed a way to beat this game and a person had found it....the last thing that he would ever do is registering in a Roulette forum and brag that he can win Roulette !
  He would have been so exited ,happy and busy from making money all over the word ,fu...ing the best women all around that he wouldn t have the mind to go in a roulette forum and start posting UNNESSESARY posts that can even harm his JOB!

[schoenpoetser]

A successful player does not wager on the outcome of the next spin but on the next spinS.My expectation is based on the statistic results of the past spins.How will you call my strategy.I know I have a very few fans.

[Psolaras]

  The 1 next spin or 5 next spins or 10 next spins doesn t change anything.
The  -2.7 is hunting us no matter what the method is based on....
Roulette has a MATHEMATICAL advantage....nothing can beat a MATHEMATICAL ADVANTAGE because it is ABSOLUT....
It is not an opinion or a way of life to be changed-altered and been beaten....

Mathematics are steady....they are not a mood that can be change....

The only way to win is by increase the accuracy of predictions based on phisics....
But as you know even that in now days is very hard because casinos know and are affraid of those AP ways so they are making the conditions as much as unbeatable as they can.

Winning with Maths-possibilities = NO WAY!
Winning with Ap                          = YES way ...BUT very hard these days.

Ps.. I don t claim that I am an Aper....I just know everything about AP. I simply don t use it because I don t have the patience to search wheels and collect datas.....only because I know that I can search 30 wheels and there is a chance that none of them have the right conditions.

[Psolaras]

Aslo if you will observe the Topics of a Roulette forum, the maths based systems are having the less replyes...
this is because everyone by now have understood that roulette can t be beaten with maths-probability.

BUT if a member is posting a Topic about OUT OF THE BOX thinking, like a Winning flat bet ,ALL the members will open the RX and will be start testing like hell......LoL

Its because they wish that an out of the box (out of maths and probability) maybe can win

And of cource this is also an other form of GF

[schoenpoetser]

I do not agree with you.You are right, I have few fans. I know verywell the house edge cannot be beaten  with a system.I do not play  a system but a strategy .On the forum I am the only one who offer public demonstations.My theory of strategies can used on live wheels and RNG.With a edge of +/- 2 % I am very satisfied.Because the house edge of an American wheel is 5,4% I never play double zero roulettesystems.

[Mike]

On the forum I am the only one who offer public demonstations.

I would like to see a demonstration, can I book a ticket? 

[bene126]

What does it mean : beat roulette ? There are systems that has beat roulette. The main reason why they are  useless are their drawdowns. Winkel has a system based on probability and this system can beat roulette. I made a test on 1 mil. spins coded. There were few big drawdowns and thats the reason why i wont use this strategy. In my opinion there are options how to beat roulette with moneymanagement.

[bene126]

If You are asking for a system that can beat roulette with flat betting based on the trends or something like that then I think there is no way. Just probability can help us to gain profits from this "game".

[bene126]

-