Great Quote In Response To Math Mentality

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi Guys,

I found this quote online regarding the thinking of math-minded roulette players.

Math-boys* say "nothing is due at roulette".
They also say "you will be a loser in the long run". But this second claim is based on the assumption that something is due and that will happen given enough time. If you talk about the "long run", you effectively admit something is due. Either you say "in the long run Reds will catch with Blacks" or "in the long run you will be a loser", makes no difference. Both statements require the belief that something is due and given enough time it will occur.

Enough Said....

[hamsup_sotong]

bro guess you read the roulette 8 blog too

nice

Hamsup

[MrJ]

I have commented on this numerous times and you are correct. The very SAME reasons people say nothing is due, is also the same definition they use saying its false. (I hope that made sense). They use *STATS* to put down 'gamblers fallacy' but those SAME stats by definition, is 'gamblers fallacy'.    Ken

[Bayes]

This is an equivocation on the word "due".  "Due" in the sense of saying 'red is due because there have been 10 blacks in a row' is not the same sense you would use "Due" when talking about the negative expectation.  Nice try though.

[Kav]

This is an equivocation on the word "due".    "Due" in the sense of saying 'red is due because there have been 10 blacks in a row' is not the same sense you would use "Due" when talking about the negative expectation.    Nice try though.   

It is exactly the same. 
The negative expectation is based on the fact that there is the zero (if you only play Even Chances for example).   If zero never comes there is no negative expectation.   So you say zero is due. 

Philosophically there are two approaches. 
A.   Anything is possible.   Any string of outcomes is possible.   (Even  strings without the appearance of zero for example.  ) In this case NO prediction is possible.   Not evn that you will lose in the long run. 

B.   The outcomes will conform with the law of large numbers and predictions are possible.   (predictions like in 200 spins at least 60 reds will appear)

Choose your side. 

[TwoCatSam]

First, there is nothing which guarantees reds and blacks will even out in N number of spins.  They may or may not, or one may overtake the other and run off.  While the variance between the R and B may get smaller when expressed as a percentage, the actual number of R vs B can increase.

Secondly, while something can be "due" the real question is:  When is it due?  Within the next two spins or the next twenty?  

Think outside the casino for a moment:

Guy #1 has watched the wheel produce ten blacks and says to Guy #2 (just sitting down), "Red is due!".  Guy #2 watches the eleventh spin come black and says to Guy #3 (just sitting down), "Red is due!"  This continues for five more guys.

Guy #8 sits down and Guy #7 tells him red is due and sure enough, red comes.  Now, for whom was red due?  Guy #1 was playing a martingale and busted; Guy #8 bet once and won.

Just blowin' in the wind; take it or leave it!

Samster

[Bayes]

Kav,

The usage of "due" really isn't the same.   In one case (gambler's fallacy) "due" refers to the belief that a deviation will even out in future spins.   This is known as the "law of averages", but it isn't a law, it's a fallacy.   

"Due" as in expectation is about the long-term average value of a series of bets.   So it's really about the law of large numbers, which isn't a fallacy.   Using the word "due" in this context isn't appropriate (as it is for the gambler's fallacy) because the "expectation" isn't necessarily "expected" in the commonly understood sense of the word, but in a specialized technical sense, which I agree can be misleading, as it says on the wiki page for Expected value:

The expected value may be intuitively understood by the law of large numbers: The expected value, when it exists, is almost surely the limit of the sample mean as sample size grows to infinity.   The value may not be expected in the general sense ââ,¬â€ the "expected value" itself may be unlikely or even impossible (such as having 2.  5 children), just like the sample mean. 

[Kav]

Sam,
With all due respect:
Your answer is irrelevant.  
I never talked about Red and Black "evening out" and never talked about "the next spin",
we are not in the same page.  

Bayes,
With all due respect:
The law of large numbers is a theorem of probability theory.  
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers/

You didn't reply to my post you just played the "gamblers fallacy" tape.  

The negative expectation is based on the law of large numbers.   You cannot prove the negative expectation of roulette without using the law of large numbers.  

You didn't chose between A and B in my previous post.

Again and again Tolstoy is proved correct when he wrote:
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.  "

[Bayes]

Kav,

Ok, first off, I choose approach 'B'.  And yes, 'predictions', such as they are, are certainly possible and accurate. 

I understand the point you're trying to make, but let's look at the first post in this thread again:

Math-boys* say "nothing is due at roulette".
They also say "you will be a loser in the long run". 

So the accusation is that the "Math-boys" are contradicting themselves by asserting that:

A) Nothing is Due
B) Something is Due

Which taken together, are obviously contradictory. 

It's my contention that what is referred to in A) is not the same as that referred to in B), even though you're using the word "due" in both cases.  Without some agreement of context though, this discussion will go no-where and both of us will remain fixed in our opinions that we are both right and the other is wrong.

It's clear that you are referring to the negative expectation in B), correct? ie; that what is due is your eventual loss.

What isn't so clear though, is exactly what you mean by A).  This is vague and ambiguous.  Obviously, it's not true that the maths says that literally "Nothing" is due because in a sense the law of large numbers DOES make certain predictions, so the "Math-boys" ARE saying that something is due.  Otherwise I would have chosen philosophical approach A) and not B). 

However, when I first read the post I immediately understood that the first instance of the word "due" was referring to the belief which a large number of gamblers have, that because a event is "out of balance" then there will be a tendency for the outcomes to equalise in the short term. 

Was I correct in interpreting use of "due" in this way?

By the way, I know you're trying to trap me into a contradiction, but I'd like to take this slowly because, contrary to what you may believe, I do have some sympathy with your position. 

[Kav]

Bayes,

Your reply makes sense.  Now we understand each other.  Thank you.

[Bayes]

Now we understand each other.

Great!  

BTW, I see you have links to some articles by Jaynes on your website.  You might enjoy this one: link:://lesswrong.com/lw/oj/probability_is_in_the_mind/

Also, I've attached another.

[TwoCatSam]

Kav

You wrote:   "Sam,
With all due respect:
Your answer is irrelevant. 
I never talked about Red and Black "evening out" and never talked about "the next spin",
we are not in the same page."

I was responding to Scooby.  Can you show me where I addressed you?  I've looked over the whole thread and I can't find it.

Whether you agree with a person's post or not, calling it "irrelevant" is rude. 

I thought the topic was on "due".  That is exactly what I addressed.

I think an apology is in order.

Sam

[Kav]

Kav

You wrote:   "Sam,
With all due respect:
Your answer is irrelevant.  
I never talked about Red and Black "evening out" and never talked about "the next spin",
we are not in the same page. "

I was responding to Scooby.   Can you show me where I addressed you?  I've looked over the whole thread and I can't find it.

Whether you agree with a person's post or not, calling it "irrelevant" is rude.  

I thought the topic was on "due".   That is exactly what I addressed.

I think an apology is in order.

Sam

Dear Sam,

I need to clarify that the quote used by Scooby was mine, from my blog.   Maybe this was not obvious.
(btw, I thank Scooby for reading me).

[Steve Morgan]

Wow! Too heavy for me.  I'm overDUE for a beer.
Steve