Gamblers fallacy for every method? Hmmm

[MrJ]

I hate it when a person uses the same definition for two different situations. Due/gamblers fallacy are one such example. I use the word DUE as meaning COLD........waiting/betting on a cold number(s) to hit because they have not hit in a long time.

In the past, I would play those methods all the time. Some very good days and some VERY BAD days. Here is my question in terms of a HOT number(s) >>>  Lets say I tracked the last 250 spins. We'll say the 22 has hit the most. I start a 110 step progression on the 22. Keep in mind, that 22 has been hitting the MOST in recent spins.

Would you say I'm betting on a number that I feel is DUE? Can DUE also mean a HOT number? I look at due (cold) as gamblers fallacy. I'm NOT saying the 22 is past DUE to hit, I'm saying the 22 is presently hitting a lot. I thought DUE meant, 'PAST' due, not the same as presently hot.

An anti-method person can not have it BOTH ways. If you say I'm NOT betting on something due (in this example), you also can NOT say I'm betting with gamblers fallacy, correct??

Ken

[kingsroulette]

I know this tantrum is mainly aimed towards me but we are here to debate as to what is right and what is wrong way of playing. Trying to "filter" some numbers from past output and to bet upon that is extremely ridiculous and without any rationale and that is why I called it "gambler's fallacy".
                This is the general explanation of the term "Gambler's fallacy" as per wikipedia:

Gambler's fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo Casino in 1913)[1], and also referred to as the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process, future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely.
For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.[2]. Such an expectation could be mistakenly referred to as being due, and it probably arises from everyday experiences with nonrandom events (such as when a scheduled train is late, where it can be expected that it has a greater chance of arriving the later it gets). This is an informal fallacy. It is also known colloquially as the law of averages.
What is true instead are the law of large numbers â€" in the long term, averages of independent trials will tend to approach the expected value, even though individual trials are independent â€" and regression toward the mean, namely that following a rare extreme event (say, a run of 10 heads), the next event is likely to be less extreme (the next run of heads is likely to be less than 10), simply because extreme events are rare.
The gambler's fallacy implicitly involves an assertion of negative correlation between trials of the random process and therefore involves a denial of the exchangeability of outcomes of the random process. In other words, one implicitly assigns a higher chance of occurrence to an event even though from the point of view of "nature" or the "experiment", all such events are equally probable (or distributed in a known way).
The reversal is also a fallacy, in which a gambler may instead decide that tails are more likely out of some mystical preconception that fate has thus far allowed for consistent results of tails; the false conclusion being: Why change if odds favor tails? Again, the fallacy is the belief that the "universe" somehow carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes.[citation needed]
The conclusion of this reversed gambler's fallacy may be correct, however, if the empirical evidence suggests that an initial assumption about the probability distribution is false. If a coin is tossed ten times and lands "heads" ten times, the gambler's fallacy would suggest an even-money bet on "tails", while the reverse gambler's fallacy (not to be confused with the inverse gambler's fallacy) would suggest an even-money bet on "heads". In this case, the smart bet is "heads" because the empirical evidenceâ€"ten "heads" in a rowâ€"suggests that the coin is likely to be biased toward "heads", contradicting the (general) assumption that the coin is fair.

                    Truth may be bitter but it is always good at the end. Nothing is ever "due" to happen in the world of randomness. If such "filters" could have been applied successfully, casinos would have died away. Enough of silly methods.

[kingsroulette]

I hope, i have answered Mr Global Moderator's queries very clearly. GLC's "filters" of hottest numbers and coldest numbers that are believed to be "Due", both are just two variants of the fallacy. Both are dangerous for a player to trust upon as well. Gambler's fallacy and dangerous progressions like Martingale are the prime causes of losses in all sort of gambling and I felt it my duty to warn all members to stay away from both.

[Bayes]

What irritates me about the "math boyz" is that they want it both ways. If we take "due" to mean "expected" then events certainly are due, for otherwise, probability and statistics would be meaningless and would be quite useless for predicting anything. There would be no limits to randomness and everything and anything could be "expected" (like 1000 reds in a row). But if ANYTHING is "expected" then in a sense nothing is. That just doesn't happen in reality. All outcomes conform to some distribution, there is an order in the apparent chaos and it doesn't mean that these patterns only form after millions of spins (as per the law of large numbers) which would render useless any attempt at exploiting them.

If "due" means outcomes will balance out in the next few spins, therefore if you see 10 blacks in a row then the next 10 spins will be red, or the next single spin is more likely to be red (in a purely mathematical sense ie; odds for red have increased) then that is indeed the gambler's fallacy. But 10 blacks in a row is a rare event, so by definition the next 10 spins are unlikely to be all black, and of course, the fact that the last 10 spins have been all black doesn't CAUSE the next 10 to have some reds; ANY given sample of 10 spins is unlikely to be black, but if they are, then the NEXT 10 spins are more likely than not to have some reds.

From the Wikipedia entry on "regression toward the mean":

Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out. 

[Chrisbis]

Excellent Post Bayes.

But You can get several "Extreme Random Events" happening in series, which is when people most likely lose the majority of their bankroll.

The avoidance of recognizably Extreme Events is where its at I feel, then yes, U get back to the Mean situations, and that is where most profit is to be made.

For instance:-

Repeaters, turning into Long Series of Unique Singles.

Watching for that change,is very very advantageous!.

[Bayes]

But You can get several "Extreme Random Events" happening in series, which is when people most likely lose the majority of their bankroll.

Agreed, that's where some research comes in handy. By recording outcomes over multiple "spin frames" you can avoid the worst of the bad sequences, and that's all that really matters, in my opinion. If you succeed at avoiding the extended killer sequences (the ones that wipe out your bank), then you're on the road to consistent success. The wins will take care of themselves, no need to "press" your bets.

Note also this significant statement (again from the Wiki entry):

In statistics, regression toward the mean (aka regression to the mean) is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on a second measurement, andâ€"a fact that may superficially seem paradoxicalâ€"if it is extreme on a second measurement, will tend to have been closer to the average on the first measurement.

[ego]

Hot or could - chasing or wait to capture when they have a show.

It for me boils down to two simpel things as i know the ball has 37 degree of freedom that there is some issues that are in conflict regarding gamblers fallacy and when something is or is not due to happen.

I could illustrate this clear as water using even money bets.
Lets assume you run 1 million simulations of sampels of 300 trails each.
Then you will be abel to verify that every sampel of 300 trails during 1 million simulations will show the same thing.

For exampel 100 singels 50 series of two 25 series of three 12 series of four 6 series of five and so on.
Then due to average distribution and some degree of fluctation does valuse will change.
But does will not change to that degree that singels wont be most dominant or that series of two will be secound most dominant and so on.

Then if you have a sampel of 300 that start with 50 singels and 25 series of two with out any other formations or series has a show - then you know for a fact that you can expect series of three and series of four and serios of five and so on to show during the next 150 trails.

Its like a vacum that apper during the distribution - a window of vacume or hitting a 3 to 4 STD.
So now we would know what the future will produce.

That is what i would call a true meaning of sleepers where there exist some kind of certani what you can expect in the future to show.
But just because we have this as fact does not make it much more easy to win or capture larger series in the future - but it increase our chance to succed if we know how to take andvantage out of senarios like that.

So it boils down to why or what it means when we speak of the law of series or the observation.

I could not state the same thing when it boils down to numbers as does also have to find same vacum and verify the same fact why something is not due to show as i mention above.
I assume if some one clustering numbers into groups or sectors they will also have there own math and probability to show with more freuent hit ratio with out having a show as being sleepers.

But all methods regarding numbers are for me so sloppy as i never find any real math or probability caculation behind them when some one write up a method and would say if there is no playing model then there is no method.

Every method i know of circulate between two things - repeats or imbalance or favorites witch is the same thing or oppiste sleepers witch is to play does that have no show or play after some hade no show start to show up.

[Juiced91]

if it is extreme on a second measurement, will tend to have been closer to the average on the first measurement.

Now thats interesting..

[Bayes]

An anti-method person can not have it BOTH ways. If you say I'm NOT betting on something due (in this example), you also can NOT say I'm betting with gamblers fallacy, correct??

So to answer your question ken, they can't have it both ways, but my guess is that they are lumping cold numbers and hot numbers together under the umbrella of "independent outcomes", therefore expecting either a balance to occur or a trend to continue is commit the same fallacy (nothing is "due" - either continuation or correction because all outcomes are independent).

[Bayes]

Then if you have a sample of 300 that start with 50 singels and 25 series of two with out any other formations or series has a show - then you know for a fact that you can expect series of three and series of four and serios of five and so on to show during the next 150 trails.

Its like a vacum that apper during the distribution - a window of vacume or hitting a 3 to 4 STD.
So now we would know what the future will produce.

The skill is in careful money management to trap the "correction" as it plays out.

[Bayes]

Now that's interesting..

The point being that if you start your attack after an average event, you're more likely to run into a bad sequence than if you'd started the attack after an extreme event.

In fact, it's the very INDEPENDENCE of the outcomes which makes regression to the mean a reality. The effect is much stronger in random outcomes than in non-random outcomes, it's always and only the random element in an event which is subject to regression.

[Juiced91]

The point being that if you start your attack after an average event, you're more likely to run into a bad sequence than if you'd started the attack after an extreme event.

In fact, it's the very INDEPENDENCE of the outcomes which makes regression to the mean a reality. The effect is much stronger in random outcomes than in non-random outcomes, it's always and only the random element in an event which is subject to regression.

I found interesting the fact that an extreme event followed by an even more extreme event would mean the first event was closer to the average as it was less extreme even though it was an "unusual" event.

[superman]

2 questions remain

Over what sample is the event measured?

How bad is extreme, surely this would be different for each above measurement size

[kingsroulette]

Bayes has affirmed what I said about fallacy in very plain language

So to answer your question ken, they can't have it both ways, but my guess is that they are lumping cold numbers and hot numbers together under the umbrella of "independent outcomes", therefore expecting either a balance to occur or a trend to continue is commit the same fallacy (nothing is "due" - either continuation or correction because all outcomes are independent).

                           This should end up this debate.

[ego]

Bayes has affirmed what I said about fallacy in very plain language
                           This should end up this debate.

It should end up this debate when you explain how a conflict is resolved towards gamblers fallacy.
I am all ears.

If i have a window any where between the first 100 trails with only singels and series of two hitting 345 STD you will allways get series of 3456789 after that during the next 200 trails no matter how many millions of simulations you run based upon that playing model.

Yes i am saying you have a crystal ball knowing what to expect - but i am not saying just because of that you would win as you have no clue how to capture does even if you know they will show.
But it does not take a monkey to understand is much easier to win if you know what to expect.

That is one conflict regarding gambler fallacy stating nothing is due to happen.
As long as human kind have been playing roulette so has there only been one record for one imbalance to reach 5.25 STD with underrepresented formation and after that a rain fall of underrepreseted formations or correction.
Again even if we know if it going to rain we don't know how frequent or how much - just that it will be rain.
But is not due to happen.
Correction is not a false positive.