Gamblers fallacy for every method? Hmmm

[woods101]

Without sounding ignorant (I know!) but how does the law of large numbers differ from the gamblers fallacy when applied over the 'long term'?

[vundarosa]

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.

------------------------

only if by default you believe things should correct over the long run.....and why should they?!

vundarosa

[Bayes]

Without sounding ignorant (I know!) but how does the law of large numbers differ from the gamblers fallacy when applied over the 'long term'?

Good question Woods, I can't see any difference, really. 

In my opinion, the gambler's fallacy should be struck off the list of fallacies. When you seriously think about it, it makes no sense at all, other than the fact that the odds don't change for independent trials, which is undeniable.

[ego]

------------------------

only if by default you believe things should correct over the long run.....and why should they?!

vundarosa

Well nothing or some times find balance some times it just stop and hovering with out correct it self all the way as previos imbalance.

But any idiot are free to show that correction does not exist the way i describe it and get back to me when they can prove me wrong - its impossibal or should i say good luck writing world history.

[warrior]

This subject has been brought up a million times ,read my thread were all crazy.

[horus]

This subject has been brought up a million times.

Yes and we should thank ego for his persistance in trying to drum some common sense into us.

[vundarosa]

Well nothing or some times find balance some times it just stop and hovering with out correct it self all the way as previos imbalance.

But any unintelligent are free to show that correction does not exist the way i describe it and get back to me when they can prove me wrong - its impossibal or should i say good luck writing world history.

----------------

and so what you're saying/showing that by experience corrections do happen while in theory me thinks there's little to imply that they should occur........now, then, how then can we call fallacious if someone has, more often than not, experienced corrections within "short" spans?

it kinda seems like you're saying "i haven't seen it, therefore it doesn't exist"

vundarosa

[Bayes]

and so what you're saying/showing that by experience corrections do happen while in theory me thinks there's little to imply that they should occur........

No, there IS a theory which is confirmed by experience - regression to the mean.

[mr.ore]

Regression to mean is not caused by previous spins so it is still gambling though. Is it that different than starting a labby after seeing that red was hitting much less than expected for some time and then a few hits happened and so it is most probable (no matter what spins were) that now it will be hitting enough for a labby to work? And how is it different from just jumping in?

Bayes, what is your system, could you describe it in more detail? From few posts you slipped I think you play several patterns on all colours which you track and if they experience a strong deviation then you bet for a correction on the appeareance of the pattern, maybe with some limited progression, and because you are tracking several of them, you hope that it will not happen that they all start losing around a same time, am I right?

[woods101]

Ok. So regression to the mean always happens eventually?  Things always balance out percentage wise we just don't know how long it will take or when it will happen yeh? Which means... the gamblers fallacy is actually a truth- things will balance in the long run, but just don't bet on it as you don't know when and table limits will prevent you capitalising on  it?!
Or if this is not true then we should see 54 blacks v 5034 reds from time to time?

Actually- you're right warrior -we're all cRaZY!!!

[kingsroulette]

things will balance in the long run

Will someone please try to explain this term too?

[ego]

Well i am not here to prove my point or make enemys - but i like to discuss correction as i know a great deal of it - that means i have complete working model that show how correction unfold and peform using even money bets - guess what just fool around with it in the past and made 3 std flat betting.
But its not for me a system - is more of a high level of exploring how some things are not due to happen.

I will start a new topic and name it Even money bets and correction for does who intressted in advance probability and math.

link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=7845.new#new

Cheers