First let's define Gambler's Fallacy:
The false notion that odds for something with a fixed probability increase/decrease depending on recent results.
Here is a typical screen of what I see all the time when gambling for practice or real:
(link:://:.roulettestrategytowin.com/photos/Reds.jpg)
Would you Bet Black because it's "overdue" or bet Red because there is a "trend" going on?
Basically anytime a Roulette system has you waiting for something to happen or not happen you are witnessing Gambler's Fallacy - that the odds will change somehow; the complete Roulette system is faulty - there is NO advantage to wait for something to happen or not happen since the output of a Roulette wheel/RNG is random and there is no "memory" in the wheel or computer program that will change the odds.
Anyway, I keep seeing Gambler's Fallacy in many systems here and on other websites and wanted to remind folks that this is utter nonsense. There is no "Gambling God" that keeps track of your game and bends the odds to make the universe right again.
That's ultimately why progressions don't work in theory.
Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on Jan 05, 08:23 AM 2012
That's ultimately why progressions don't work in theory.
That brings up a great point:
"The odds for Roulette dictate that over the long run Roulette is a net loser for the gambler".
(Long run being hundreds/thousands of hours of playing Roulette)
So how do you make money playing Roulette if the odds are against you?
This definition BS regarding gamblers fallacy always kills me. Let me ask this >> Lets say I put all the roulette numbers in a hat. I blindly pick any number, its the #20. I bet $5 on the #20 for one spin and then go home, I never play roulette again. Is that gamblers fallacy? If not, why?
Ken
Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing. I say this because I came to realize why some people are winners while others are losers.
I cannot, and I say this with conviction, draw or paint an artistic picture if my life depended on it. I am a stick person "artist".
With that being said, I have an uncanny ability to understand the dynamics of number generation. What is a reality to me is a fallacy to another. My skill sets are different from that of a trained mathematician. The only difference between the mathematician and I is that I understand the mathematician.
Kimo Li
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 05, 09:17 AM 2012
This definition BS regarding gamblers fallacy always kills me. Let me ask this >> Lets say I put all the roulette numbers in a hat. I blindly pick any number, its the #20. I bet $5 on the #20 for one spin and then go home, I never play roulette again. Is that gamblers fallacy? If not, why?
Ken
There is no Gambler's Fallacy involved - you did not wait for something magical to happen and you picked a number (assuming you had 1-36 and 0 and 00 perhaps as numbers to pick) - your chance of winning was 1/37 or 1/38. It's that simple.
Quote from: Kimo Li on Jan 05, 09:43 AM 2012
Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing. I say this because I came to realize why some people are winners while others are losers.
I cannot, and I say this with conviction, draw or paint an artistic picture if my life depended on it. I am a stick person "artist".
With that being said, I have an uncanny ability to understand the dynamics of number generation. What is a reality to me is a fallacy to another. My skill sets are different from that of a trained mathematician. The only difference between the mathematician and I is that I understand the mathematician.
Kimo Li
If you have such a gift there is a game of chance called PowerBall, you should give it a try - I've played for 10+ years and I never seem to get the numbers right.....
"Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing" >>> 10000000% accurate.
Ken
This is why I brought up the topic of Gambler's Fallacy - too many folks think it's not for real.
It is and if you believe the odds are getting better the more you lose then you fell for Gambler's Fallacy.
:yawn:
Waiting for "triggers" is another form of Gambler's Fallacy.
That wheel or RNG has no idea what it spun last spin or the spin before that or last years spin at this time.
So if a Roulette system has you waiting for anything you can throw it in the trash can - it's full of Gambler's Fallacy and is a net loser.
What a hoot! "The wheel has no memory." If you see 20 reds in a row should the question be "black is due or red is trending."
The question should be - no matter what the odds were, that I was lucky to be at the casino when a streak like this happened, the question should be "have I won enough." I would have already won 15 in a row. Those protecting themselves with catch phrases and other magical beliefs would get nothing and like the fact.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 05, 12:58 PM 2012
What a hoot! "The wheel has no memory." If you see 20 reds in a row should the question be "black is due or red is trending."
The question should be - no matter what the odds were, that I was lucky to be at the casino when a streak like this happened, the question should be "have I won enough." I would have already won 15 in a row. Those protecting themselves with catch phrases and other magical beliefs would get nothing and like the fact.
I've sat through similar streaks in a B&M casino and watch folks look up and smile and then 50% of them bet Red and 50% bet Black; then many will bet on 0.
What's the correct answer? It's 50/50 (actually 18/37 and 18/37 or 1/37 for a European wheel)....
what a usless tooopic :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:
Quote from: maestro on Jan 05, 01:21 PM 2012
what a usless tooopic :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:
So you agree then that Gambler's Fallacy is real and that any Roulette system based on it is destined to lose?
I agree....
to lose no.......no
It's a fallacy to think that roulette remains in a consistant 50/50 state. Example this 20 reds in a row. If you walked up just ten spins before it started then the actual results would be far from 50/50. If you can't calculate the currant odds then you are forced to depend on factless beliefs .
There are no changes in the odds. 20 reds is just as rare as 10 blacks followed by 10 reds and you will equally often have your streaks interrupted by formations with the same odds like the 2 above.
No wonder there are a 1000 people with a gambling debt problem for each 1 with a gambling winning problem. They trick you into a belief that you by pure thinking can outsmart the wheel.
Kelly, the secret is in not out thinking the wheel, it's in out thinking yourself. You must not react when you think that something is due. Following any bet selection process is just the mechanics. The trick is to know if it is working or not. React to the existing facts. That's the way to beat the odds.
Quote from: kelly on Jan 05, 03:59 PM 2012No wonder there are a 1000 people with a gambling debt problem for each 1 with a gambling winning problem.
Maybe the ones who think that they're winning do exhibit the greater problems? E.g., even the Wizard of Vegas/Odds, who tries to make a career of it.
A new level of the "Gamblers' Fallacy"?
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 05, 03:39 PM 2012
It's a fallacy to think that roulette remains in a consistant 50/50 state. Example this 20 reds in a row. If you walked up just ten spins before it started then the actual results would be far from 50/50. If you can't calculate the currant odds then you are forced to depend on factless beliefs .
See, this is why I brought up this topic - you are falling victim to Gambler's Fallacy.
The odds NEVER change in Roulette - doesn't matter if 12 Reds are showing the odds of Red or Black or 0 coming out on the next spin are fixed and the same.
Too many gamblers just want to throw Gambler's Fallacy out the window - that somehow the odds change depending what's on that Marquee - they don't change at all for any reason....
So now we have the all purpose excuse for losing. If you are not a professional player you are a victim .
QuoteIf you have such a gift there is a game of chance called PowerBall, you should give it a try - I've played for 10+ years and I never seem to get the numbers right.....
An artist uses a particular medium to craft his masterpiece. He or she may have more than one; mine is roulette, greyhounds, and poker, not necessarily in that order. PowerBall, I'll leave that medium to the gamblers.
Kimo Li
The gamblig also submits to the natural laws of the universe which can be exploited.
The edge in gambling is still at Baccarat (the best), Roulette, SicBo and Craps. Electronically controlled games are for losers - that's a fallacy! Even horse/dog/pig or turtles races are controlled by the mafia. BJ controlled by the shuffling machines is also utopia.
Example: We know that one dozen doesn't come often more then 3 times in row. If you will bet after 3 in row with clever progression you win more then lose. You don't need to win always but in the long run win more then lose.
Cheers Hermes
Oh im convinced now. There is no gamblers fallacy if you are able to lift yourself off the ground in a zen state of the art, outhink yourself and exploit the laws of the universe or has an artistic approach to the game.
Gamblers who dismiss the Gambler's Fallacy usually seem to have wacky ideas on how Roulette really works - none of these far out ideas can ever be divulged nor proven but they replace the laws of probability.
Just ask someone who doesn't believe in the Gambler's Fallacy what they believe in and you'll find that the laws of science must be thrown out the window in order for their ideas to work.
Quote from: kelly on Jan 05, 11:12 PM 2012
...There is no gamblers fallacy if you are able to lift yourself off the ground in a zen state of the art, outhink yourself and exploit the laws of the universe or has an artistic approach to the game.
Gotta love this game!
This is what I do not understand. If people believe math cannot beat roulette, then why are you playing roulette?, Mathematical Fallacy perhaps. Who knows ... fallacy or not, no more bets.
Quote from: Kimo Li on Jan 06, 12:39 AM 2012
This is what I do not understand. If people believe math cannot beat roulette, then why are you playing roulette?, Mathematical Fallacy perhaps. Who knows ... fallacy or not, no more bets.
This is a great question.
You have to use and understand math to win at Roulette.
The statistics of Roulette are well know and are unmovable - you can't ignore them.
But it all comes down to luck and how to deal with it.
The same can be said of driving a car - the laws of physics and math are well known. Still there are only a few world class drivers and 99.999% horrible drivers on the road.....
They say to be a success you must create your own luck.
By the way, what are the odds that five quality trends will occur in the next 100 spins?
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 06, 01:36 AM 2012
They say to be a success you must create your own luck.
By the way, what are the odds that five quality trends will occur in the next 100 spins?
You've got to define "quality trends".
Could be N Blacks in a row.
Could be N double dozens in a row
Could be N numbers in a row
Could be N 6-lines in a row
Could be N streets, corners, splits in a row
N = 2 - ??
Or it could be a random pattern R-R-B-R not appearing N times in a row.
In any case simple look up the probability and multiply - 5th grade math (maybe 1st grade A-P math)
MauiSunset, nice try, but you didn't answer my question. You just asked a bunch of questions yourself.
P.S. Looks like you are claiming that simple math is a predictor.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 06, 11:18 AM 2012
MauiSunset, nice try, but you didn't answer my question. You just asked a bunch of questions yourself.
P.S. Looks like you are claiming that simple math is a predictor.
Your question can't be answered unless you be more specific.
I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by this game - you need to define your magical "quality trends".
Unless you don't know the answer and are looking for some guidance - then I'd be glad to help you....
MS-" Your question can't be answered unless you be more specific."
OK. If 8 quality trends happen in the next 100 spins then how many quality trends happen in the next 100 spins.
Quality Trend: any trend that is 80% pure or better and that lasts about 15 spins.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 06, 11:36 AM 2012
MS-" Your question can't be answered unless you be more specific."
OK. If 8 quality trends happen in the next 100 spins then how many quality trends happen in the next 100 spins.
Quality Trend: any trend that is 80% pure or better and that lasts about 15 spins.
OK, there is no generally accepted Roulette term "quality trend" - you defined it for your own needs.
I still have no idea what you mean by "Quality Trend: any trend that is 80% pure or better and that lasts about 15 spins."
Since this is your definition why on earth quiz me? Just tell us what you are trying to get at.
Then I can respond to your definition.
Honestly, I don't know what game you're playing but it's just wasting everyone's time...........
Try this one:
The gamblers fallacy is not a fallacy, it's actually a truth. If you wait long enough at a roulette table for certain events to happen then eventually they will. The 'gamblers fallacy' of waiting for an event to happen is entirely valid. The particular event WILL actually happen.
As for any fallacy - the only fallacy is believing you may be able to cross your legs, put a cork in it, stay awake and have a BR in the millions to last long enough to profit from it.
In my mind this is the true fallacy so in answer to this topic, I would state that the gamblers fallacy is actually a truth. Wait for it. It will come. It's mathematically proven!
:wink:
woods
MS - " Honestly, I don't know what game you're playing but it's just wasting everyone's time......."
Just admit it. You can't answer my simple question. I knew you couldn't. I have decades more experience than you, both math and trend playing. I can't answer my own question. Nobody can. It's not a waste of everyone's time to see you patronize others.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 06, 12:15 PM 2012
MS - " Honestly, I don't know what game you're playing but it's just wasting everyone's time......."
Just admit it. You can't answer my simple question. I knew you couldn't. I have decades more experience than you, both math and trend playing. I can't answer my own question. Nobody can. It's not a waste of everyone's time to see you patronize others.
I admit that I can't comment on your definition of "quality trend" - there is no such animal in reality.
But if it makes you feel superior to other gamblers I'm happy for you.
My experience is that folks who can't win at Roulette need to cook up all kinds of insane ideas that have no basis in reality. There is no "quality trend" in this reality - maybe the one you live in has these occur all the time......
MS - " I admit that I can't comment on your definition of "quality trend"- there is no such animal in reality."
You have established yourself officially that you are a mathboy. (mathboyz)
All mathboyz claim that trends don't exist.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 06, 01:00 PM 2012
MS - " I admit that I can't comment on your definition of "quality trend"- there is no such animal in reality."
You have established yourself officially that you are a mathboy. (mathboyz)
All mathboyz claim that trends don't exist.
Gizmo you did this same thing 1 year ago - you propose and insane idea, belittle folks for not being as smart as you, then when asked to demonstrate your insane idea you give all kinds of excuses why you can't do it.
Nothing has changed in a year - if you have such a fantastic idea start your own topic or chat room and brag about how great you are.....
MS, that's a great idea. I need to prove the existance of trends.
Basic accepted definition: " the general course or prevailing tendency."
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 06, 01:21 PM 2012
MS, that's a great idea. I need to prove the existance of trends.
Basic accepted definition: " the general course or prevailing tendency."
There are NO trends in random numbers - just higher and higher probabilities against the last color/odd/high/dozen/column/number showing up in the next spin to extend the "trend".
If you see trends in random numbers you are suffering from a form of Gambler's Fallacy - you believe in something that is not there....
Quote from: MauiSunset on Jan 06, 01:52 PM 2012
There are NO trends in random numbers - just higher and higher probabilities against the last color/odd/high/dozen/column/number showing up in the next spin to extend the "trend".
....er...isn't this called gamblers fallacy.....?!? :o
Quote from: woods101 on Jan 06, 03:09 PM 2012
....er...isn't this called gamblers fallacy.....?!? :o
No, what I'm trying to say is that (for Black/Red) if 2 Reds are on the Marquee then the chance of a Red spinning is 18/37 and the odds of 3 in a row are 18/37*18/37*18/37=11.5% (European wheel).
If you see those 2 Reds it means nothing but afterwards and 3 Reds show up then the odds were just 11.5% of that happening.
The trick, of course, is to have a bet selection method that would have you bet Red in this instance...
MS-" If you see those 2 Reds it means nothing but afterwards and 3 Reds show up then the odds were just 5.6% of that happening."
Gads - get your mathboyz face on. The odds are .4864 for red to occur. The house advantage for a 37 slot wheel is 0.027027027 .
P.S. there is an 11% chance of getting three reds in a sequence.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 06, 04:44 PM 2012
MS-" If you see those 2 Reds it means nothing butafterwards and 3 Reds show up thenthe odds were just 5.6% of that happening."
Gads - get your mathboyz face on. The odds are .4864 for red to occur. The house advantage for a 37 slot wheel is 0.027027027 .
I'll talk slower 18/37 is .4864864
For 3 Reds to show up in a "trend" (which means nothing) is .4864864 * .4864864 * .4864864 = .0560122
Exactly what I said the odds of 3 Reds showing up in a row is 11.5%.....
MS, ( 0.027027027 ), where did I go wrong? Please help.
Oh - I see now. I calculated house advantage.
let's try your math: .4864864 * .4864864 * .4864864 = .11513625826
The odds of 3 Red or Black or Even or Odd or Hi or Low is 11.5% (I had 5.6% and I have no idea why my cell phone calculator comes up with that - is should be 11.5%) Sorry....
The house advantage on EC bets is 1/37=2.7% European wheel, 2/38=5.3% American wheel