An effort to help some members get out of the worst gambing fallacy

[Ralph]

The 5:th trials to get a son, will have higher probability then the four before, the four before has no chance at all, it we exclude modern medical technology and social values.

[iggiv]

well, i am not gonna argue, it is all in wikipedia

link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Childbirth

[speed]

If i could get few heavily imbalanced events at the same time i would take my chances with a positive progressions on them.

Bravo Robeenhuut!!! You're the first one on this forum who connected deviation and positive progression. 

This is the same way I play roulette for a long time, i have some modification but base is the same , so far proved to be long term winner, tested in RX on milions spins. Who does not believe it should try.


speed

[Ralph]

well, i am not gonna argue, it is all in wikipedia

link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Childbirth

Iggiv the girls are allready born, so they have lower probabillity to be boys, than the not yet born.

[woods101]

If you can argue against gamblers fallacy and the relevance of past results then would you accept that the world you live in absolutely relies on it?
If you've ever taken any form of conventional medicine then you are reliant on GF. All modern drugs go through a process of clinical testing or to use the relevant term - clinical 'trials'. We all know that this involves tests of a certain number on a certain amount of individuals/ animals etc. Based on a small yet representative number of trials a product is deemed to be either effective/ non effective. Dangerous / non dangerous. If a thousand tests (hypothetical number) on individuals deem a product to be safe, then past results are relied on as an indication of future results i.e. it is accepted that the number of tests (whatever that number is) is representative of the population as a whole and therefore the product is safe to pass. There will always be exceptions to the rule hence 'always read the label' etc but the 'smaller' test is accepted as representative of the bigger population.
Depending on the product and the risk, the amount of trials may be smaller or larger. This is irrelevant. What is worth noting though, is a mathematician who applies the standard view of probability would argue that a test that shows side effects in 100/1000 people is not indicative at all. Each test is independent. This is not how a trials company would view those tests. A 'maths boy' would argue that it is entirely feasible that you could have 50 people in a row out of the next 100 suffer adverse side effects, just like it's possible to have 100 reds in a row. Is it probable? No. A drugs company would also think so. So would an insurance company. So would a loan company. So would a sales company. So would most companies. In fact would it not be a fair statement to say that all market research is obtaining past results in order to make a prediction on future results....within markets that appear random?
Are the workings of the entire modern, western civilization based upon the fallacy that past results have a bearing on future results?
If so then where does it leave this thread heading next...? 


Woods

[woods101]

well, i am not gonna argue, it is all in wikipedia

link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Childbirth

Wikipedia should never be relied upon. For anything. Fact.

[iggiv]

Woods, that's cool, but the gambling book authors all say roughly the same.
I think this is a  well known thing.

[TwoCatSam]

Bayes

To quote you and me:

"What force in the universe makes black more likely to hit?  What force in the universe says red has hit too many times and black must catch up? 

Knowing the forces won't help you, it's enough to know that it happens and that you can rely on it."

It would seem you are admitting there is some "force" in the universe that causes this phenomenon we might call "equalization".  Baby girls and trends and all that aside, what could this force be?

I would pose this question:  If red hits can we say black is due to hit on the next spin?  No, we cannot.  Why then, if too many reds have hit, can we believe that black will--at some distant time--equalize with red?  How could we be sure the wheel would not produce another abundance of reds? 

I would pose another question:  If this wheel who had produced too many reds was shut down for a week, would it still try to equalize once it was re-started?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  How long a memory does the wheel have?

All in all, I guess it really doesn't matter as there is no way to capitalize on it anyway.  But for me, it's interesting to dwell on it.

Sam

[TwoCatSam]

iggiv

Say in the last 40 spins we had 30 blacks (that's more realistic than 100 blacks in a row scenario)

I said it was an "exaggerample".....an exaggerated example!  I don't literally mean 100 in a row.  Sometimes--for thought experiments--I go to extremes.  It can be very helpful.

Or not.......

Sam

[iggiv]

OK OK. Sorry i did not mean anything against u. I just made an example which looks more like what i could encounter in real life.

[Ralph]

If it is a force it may be entropy, an even out in the long long run, with all kinds of outcomes in every length will be the least order.

[TwoCatSam]

Not trying to be a jerk, but I guess I am.......................

I just love to ask unanswerable questions.  Always have.

Just left Savannah, Georgia.  Duke University--which is not known to blow smoke--has determined the city is full of ghosts!

Here's a question:  If a soldier appears as a ghost, why is he dressed?  Are his clothes ghosts, too?

Why are ghosts never naked?  Is it because that would offend our sense of decency?  Why would a ghost care?

I'll shut up for a while...........

Sam

[Stepkevh]

I only know of 1 naked ghost and its Casper the friendly ghost 

And theres nothing wrong to see about him that would offend our sense of decency.

[TwoCatSam]

You can't see his dingus!!

[Bayes]

Are the workings of the entire modern, western civilization based upon the fallacy that past results have a bearing on future results?

woods, this is an old problem in philosophy called the 'problem of induction'. As you don't trust Wikipedia, see this in the encyclopedia Brittanica.


Sam, if you like unanswerable questions, try this one:

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?