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

[MrJ]

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

[hoper335]

A problem with probability is it leads to the House's edge.


Ron.

[albalaha]

Offcourse Ken,
        Probability says that a single number should appear once in 37 spins in roulette but it doesn't happen practically. What is right by probability is wrong by randomness. Roulette is more about randomness than probabilities. Playing roulette with probability is gambler's fallacy.

[winkel]

I think if your look at probability in short and long term gives you the chance to make an educated guess, your bet will have a better chance than watching 5 red and betting black because it has to appear now.

br
winkel

[mr.ore]

A big question is, what is a method based on probability?

Let's have two methods to win one unit with five units bankroll, both are based on probability:

method 1: bet 1 unit on five lines, we cover 5*6 numbers.
Probability to win is p(method 1 wins) = 5*6/37=0.810810.

method 2: bet 1 unit on even chance, if it loses bet 1 unit on dozen, if that also loses bet last 3 units on even chance. Anytime it wins, profit will be 1 unit, while still risking 5 units bankroll like with method 1. Probability is different:
p(method 2 wins) = 18/37+19/37*12/37+19/37*25/37*18/37 = 0.821826

method 2 is better than method 1

Both methods are based on probability, but one of them has higher chance of winning. Conclusion - method based on probability is not always gamblers fallacy.

[albalaha]

Nice explanations. Waiting for Bayes to comment too.

[RBR7]

Both methods are based on probability, but one of them has higher chance of winning.   Conclusion - method based on probability is not always gamblers fallacy. 

True, but they both fail under house edge in the end.   So  second method will only lose less in the long run, but it will still lose.   

I think, a better question is: "Can mathematical knowlege and understanding of probability really help to make a winning method?" I think not. 

Regards

[MrJ]

What method do you use RBR7?


Ken

[RBR7]

What method do you use RBR7?


Ken

I don't use any method, since I stop playing for real.   You see I don't belive that it is worth playing, if you don't have a method that it is confirmed by simulation on different permenences (I prefer at least several 100 thousand placed bets simulation on real numbers).   Every method did fail simulations in the past. 

People get excited to quickly and when simulation show the reality they just don't want to except it.   

Anyway, I prefer the most logical and flat betting method on single numbers in intervals of 4-6 spins with step up progression when 2 hits in a row doesn't alow breaking even anymore. 

Regards

[albalaha]

There can be only one method which can get edge over this game. Shuffling numbers and a very mild and sensible progression wherever required.

[RBR7]

There can be only one method which can get edge over this game.   Shuffling numbers and a very mild and sensible progression wherever required. 

That is not true.   Progression will not give you and edge in a long run (it will just change the ration of w/l) and you will only losing lesser times, but when you will you will lose more and in the end it will balanced.   Result will be exactly the same as flat betting all the way.   

Shuffling will also not change the game, because that is just random against random in it is proven not to work.   Getting and edge is not easy and without computer simulation is not very belivable either.   There is not been any scientific proof in any forum by now.  .  .  .  .  .  it is ussualy lack of testing that mislead people when they make claims like that. 

Regards

[albalaha]

Dear RBR7,
            If you think that neither any progression, nor flat betting can get any edge in this game, leave gambling forever. Computer simulations does not guarantee anything and in no way it helps in winning or predicting future outcomes.
   There are two popular adages about statistics:
1. Statistics can prove anything;
  2. Statistics proves nothing.

[MrJ]

"Progression will not give you an edge" >>> An 'edge'......Hmmm


Ken

[RBR7]

Dear RBR7,
            If you think that neither any progression, nor flat betting can get any edge in this game, leave gambling forever.  Computer simulations does not guarantee anything and in no way it helps in winning or predicting future outcomes.
   There are two popular adages about statistics:
1.  Statistics can prove anything;
  2.  Statistics proves nothing.

I just expresed my opinion to which im entilted too and I did leave gambling as said already in previous posts.  Statistic do prove everything and computer simulations (on real spins) do tell how good is your system.  The only thing that can (if) give you the edge is bet selection.  And only bet selection is IMO worth exploring.

Im sorry this is just my view of reality (it wasnt always like that) about roulette systems and just because some ppl think that have and edge (because they get it back what the lost in the beginning) and claim that system is done that, I just cant agree.  The only real proof is enough placed flat bets  and that cant be done by hand testing.

Regards

[albalaha]

Dear RBR7,
          I am not questioning your knowledge or intelligence about the game called roulette but so far in all my researches I have found that no flat betting method can sustain for long. Sensible progression coupled with a stop loss point had worked best for me. I am having a constant watch over Don Colonne's flat betting method which seems to be very logical. Roulette is a form of gambling and speculation. You can just play it intelligently but can't ensure anything. No risk, no gain.