Roulette Forum
Roulette Forum => Gambling Philosophy => Topic started by: Mike on January 01, 2016, 11:30:38 AM

Yes or No? Personally I think they do, but I'd be interested in hearing contrary views.

Well duh! A run of two is about twice as likely as a run of three. A run of three is about twice as likely as a run of four. However, at each spin, the odds remain the same, regardless of what has hit in the past.
So what's your point?
Yes, the Gamblers Fallacy as applied by system critics is a deceit. Again you only focus on the underlined and ignore the practical effects of the italicized; IE PRACTICAL EFFECTS THAT MANIFEST IN SPIN RESULTS LIKE A PHYSICAL LAW IN THE WORLD  say like gravity or magnetism if you will.

Reyth,
You continue to miss the point, which is that past spins don't indicate future spins. There are indeed real patterns in probabilities, such as the one you mention pertaining to the even chances, then there's the socalled "law of the third" so beloved of system addicts, and lots more. The crucial thing to understand is that these "laws" don't tell you the ORDER or SEQUENCE in which any instance of them manifests at the table, because single AND series of outcomes are independent of what has gone before, therefore from a practical point of view they really are useless. You observe that there has been a run of 3, does this mean that a run of 2 is now more likely, GIVEN THAT there has just been a run of 3. NO.
You should really watch all the vids.

Reyth,
You continue to miss the point, which is that past spins don't indicate future spins. There are indeed real patterns in probabilities, such as the one you mention pertaining to the even chances, then there's the socalled "law of the third" so beloved of system addicts, and lots more. The crucial thing to understand is that these "laws" don't tell you the ORDER or SEQUENCE in which any instance of them manifests at the table, because single AND series of outcomes are independent of what has gone before, therefore from a practical point of view they really are useless. You observe that there has been a run of 3, does this mean that a run of 2 is now more likely, GIVEN THAT there has just been a run of 3. NO.
You should really watch all the vids.
It depends on the definition of the word fallacy.
From my point of view there is not only black and white, but mostly different shades of gray...
I strongly believe all are coming down to individual perception.
I prefer to perceive the particular matter more subjectively rather objectively.
Therefore I avoid intentionally to adopt dogmatic thesis.
I really agree with your last response Mike, but if we accept it as fact then the MIT team of blackjack players committed fallacious methods too.
If it's not already clear what I'm imposing,I will explain you in a very plain manner;
It is generally known and accepted among the majority of gamblers that the card counting technique is a valid method for gaining an advantage over the house if applied properly.
I agree so far because in card games there are a finite number of combinations, but we have to assume that the decks are not being constantly reshuffled and to be dealt till the bottom of the shoe.
Even if these conditions have been met card counting alone is not sufficient in order to guarantee what we would call a sure win method.
You have answered why on your above post when you wrote:
''The crucial thing to understand is that these "laws" don't tell you the ORDER or SEQUENCE in which any instance of them manifests at the table.''
Therefore even if we could determine with a mathematical precision quantities in the remaining undealt cards, we could not determine in which order/sequence are going to occur.
A practical example;
Let's say 52 cards remaining in the shoe (relevantly small amount) and my count determines 30 high value cards, could this be sufficient to guarantee a profit without knowing their sequence??
I think not, however this kind of fallacy like ''law of large numbers'' and ''regression towards the mean'' have won lot of money in long term by their users.
My point is that we shouldn't be absolutely certain for everything in my sceptical point of view.

Reyth,
You continue to miss the point, which is that past spins don't indicate future spins. There are indeed real patterns in probabilities, such as the one you mention pertaining to the even chances, then there's the socalled "law of the third" so beloved of system addicts, and lots more. The crucial thing to understand is that these "laws" don't tell you the ORDER or SEQUENCE in which any instance of them manifests at the table, because single AND series of outcomes are independent of what has gone before, therefore from a practical point of view they really are useless. You observe that there has been a run of 3, does this mean that a run of 2 is now more likely, GIVEN THAT there has just been a run of 3. NO.
You should really watch all the vids.
Of course its more likely to get the opposite result after a series of 3. YES.

I really agree with your last response Mike, but if we accept it as fact then the MIT team of blackjack players committed fallacious methods too.
BlueAngel,
Blackjack is NOT a game of independent trials, but roulette is, so MIT team were not being fallacious (if they were, they would not have won).

Of course its more likely to get the opposite result after a series of 3. YES.
Why?

Can anyone suggest a system or method of play (apart from AP) which does NOT commit the gambler's fallacy?
Enquiring minds want to know!

I really agree with your last response Mike, but if we accept it as fact then the MIT team of blackjack players committed fallacious methods too.
BlueAngel,
Blackjack is NOT a game of independent trials, but roulette is, so MIT team were not being fallacious (if they were, they would not have won).
Therefore even if we could determine with a mathematical precision quantities in the remaining undealt cards, we could not determine in which order/sequence are going to occur.
A practical example;
Let's say 52 cards remaining in the shoe (relevantly small amount) and my count determines 30 high value cards, could this be sufficient to guarantee a profit without knowing their sequence??
The finite amount of cards do not justify efficiency of card counting.
In other words their results could be replicated by a syndicate of gamblers with huge bankroll at craps,baccarat,roulette and so on...
The cause of their success was not due to card counting solely,but mostly to organization and huge unified bankroll.
They applied with discipline and patience their well organized plan,that was the key for the success.
I consider blackjack the worst game after sluts because you have a number of issues to overcome,such as: automatic shuffling machines,6 decks to deal with,bets can only go to one side but results are going both ways (you cannot bet on dealer's cards), you have to play all losing hands for the game to proceed (not in every casino).
All those issues are overwhelming significantly card counting.
Besides card counting could be applied to baccarat which I consider slightly better than blackjack,so who and why is promoting blackjack in order to steer people towards that direction...?

Can anyone suggest a system or method of play (apart from AP) which does NOT commit the gambler's fallacy?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Mike if you stop thinking in terms of perpetual betting to catch up with a great imbalance that may exists at any given time, then you will understand that not every system falls under the gambler's fallacy doctrine. What separates a good system from an ordinary system is the fact that a good system should aim at AT LEAST ONE HIT and then it should stop. Mission accomplished.
Then worry about another similar bout later. Where do you see the gambler's fallacy being in effect under this way of thinking? Gambler's fallacy clearly states that it has to do with balancing imbalances. That's a far cry from the example I just gave you.

The gambler's fallacy isn't about believing that unusual or rare events can or can't occur, its about believing that past spins indicate future spins. It's a nasty disease which seems to infect all roulette systems. Unfortunately, the cure of rational thinking seems to be a long way off. Mike.
The above quote was written by Mike and it very effectively says it like it really is. The gambler's fallacy is an infection of ignorance, a nasty disease that leaves the mind trapped and quarantined.
Well done Mike.
@Blue Angel,
In roulette the same number of pockets remain on the wheel from one spin to the next, so each spin is an independent trial. However, in BJ the number of cards are finite and their numbers dwindle as the cards are dealt. This means that the odds change as the various cards are dealt. You can not equate roulette and BJ. Card counters are in no way falling prey to the gambler's fallacy.

Of course its more likely to get the opposite result after a series of 3. YES.
Why?
Because equal distribution applies to every spin just as much as "independent outcomes".

@ Real
Then why don't you play bj instead of roulette??
I still believe that roulette it's a magical thing...many people after many years still looking at the same game as it was but each and everyone of them seeing from different angle different things!

Ryeth,
I'm afraid you're infected.
Blue Angel,
Because I don't play the game. I exploit the wheel via advantage play. My edge is significantly higher than a card counters edge.

Of course its more likely to get the opposite result after a series of 3. YES.
Why?
Because equal distribution applies to every spin just as much as "independent outcomes".
This makes no sense. How can equal distribution apply to every spin? Equal distribution implies that after a NUMBER of spins the proportions of different bets will be equal. It doesn't mean that those proportions will manifest in the kind of short term gamblers are concerned with. Equal distribution means that the RATIO of outcomes tends to equalize, not the absolute numbers, and even the ratio only equalizes after many spins.

There is nothing in my statement that implies length of time, just that the force/law exists. It DOES however have demonstrable effects in daily play which I have also shown but "Fallacy Fanatics" refuse to acknowledge.

There is nothing in my statement that implies length of time, just that the force/law exists. It DOES however have demonstrable effects in daily play which I have also shown but "Fallacy Fanatics" refuse to acknowledge.Reyth
Ok, give us some detailed examples.

Reyth,
It's pretty hard to pin down what you actually mean. I'm not sure whether you're deliberately trying confuse us or are just confused yourself. You keep saying that these simulations and stats of yours demonstrate objective effects but at the same time have no practical value. If that's the case what's the point of them?

If you are willing to say "they have no practical value" then that's all I need. Stop telling people that what they are trying to do has no effect. It has an effect in your mind, its just not practical, so be intellectually consistent. Thanks.
Ok fine, since you both teamed up here, I guess that makes it worth responding.
You guys say there is no end point to statistics, that we can never reach 100%. Well no duh! And then you guys say, "And looks der is teh Monte Carlo!!!! See roulette has no governing force its pure random!" which is great if you are a glass halfempty kind of person that likes to give up at every breeze. You speak to me of practical value?? An event with odds of less than 1 in MULTIPLE QUADRILLIONS has no practical value except for defeatists and people that like to intellectually power trip or sell their AP systems.
The truth is that there is a PRACTICAL horizon to statistics even though there will never be 100% certainty. One example of this practical horizon, to show that it exists and therefore can be striven for, is Simple Street. I have proven there that a progression table of 62 bets in width and 28 levels in height does not see a loss in multiple quadrillions of spin trials. This is a PRACTICAL advantage.
IT EXISTS SO STOP TELLING PEOPLE IT DOESN'T.

Can anyone suggest a system or method of play (apart from AP) which does NOT commit the gambler's fallacy?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Mike,
" Gamblers Fallacy" is a fallacy ! IT is based on the assumption that every EC bet has odds of 18/37 regardless of where or when it occurs. In fact this is only true if the bet is considered in isolation. Once it is part of a series the odds change.
Lets consider a scenario which you suggested :
There has been a run of 3, lets call them blacks. No one is going to consider that this means that there will now be a run of 2 reds. However I have successfully used a system based on this scenario.
3 blacks have occurred. This does not mean the next spin must be red, but there is only a 1/7 chance that all of the next 3 spins will be black. So my bet is that one of the next 3 spins will be red. Aha ! I hear you shout. to make a profit you must bet a marty 124. that's a risk of 7 units. Compare this to the 1/7 chance of all black in the "long run" you will only be even and the HE will break you !
THINK AGAIN ! If I win on my 1st bet I only risk 1u, that's a 50% chance. If I lose the 1st and win the 2nd I only risk 3u, that's a 25% chance.(50% by your reckoning) If I lose the 1st two and win the third I risk 7u but that's a 12.5% chance(50% ?). That means I have an 87.5 chance of being even and a 75% chance of a nice win. Only a 12.5% chance of losing all 3 bets.
Of course you could claim that each of my bets only had a 50% chance, but then 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 seem to work out to the same thing.
Harry

Of course I agree here. The number of black entries decrease with each additional spin in the series which represents an increased chance to hit a red.

3 blacks have occurred. This does not mean the next spin must be red, but there is only a 1/7 chance that all of the next 3 spins will be black. So my bet is that one of the next 3 spins will be red.Harry
There's also roughly a 1/7 chance that they will be all red. In other words, the odds for both are the same.
If you were to wait for three blacks before continuing to bet black, then the results over time would be the exact same as your choice to bet red after three blacks.
Of course I agree here. The number of black entries decrease with each additional spin in the series which represents an increased chance to hit a red.Reyth
No the odds don't change because of what has hit in the past. Red is no more likely to hit than black.

3 blacks have occurred. This does not mean the next spin must be red, but there is only a 1/7 chance that all of the next 3 spins will be black. So my bet is that one of the next 3 spins will be red.Harry
There's also roughly a 1/7 chance that they will be all red. In other words, the odds for both are the same.
If you were to wait for three blacks before continuing to bet black, then the results over time would be the exact same as your choice to bet red after three blacks.
Of course I agree here. The number of black entries decrease with each additional spin in the series which represents an increased chance to hit a red.Reyth
No the odds don't change because of what has hit in the past. Red is no more likely to hit than black.
How about the 'big red', can you stop the BIG  RED  7 ??!!
YOU CANNOT STOP THE UNSTOPPABLE!
BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Seven  Eleven, place your bets where your mouth is gentlemen!

3 blacks have occurred. This does not mean the next spin must be red, but there is only a 1/7 chance that all of the next 3 spins will be black. So my bet is that one of the next 3 spins will be red.Harry
There's also roughly a 1/7 chance that they will be all red. In other words, the odds for both are the same.
If you were to wait for three blacks before continuing to bet black, then the results over time would be the exact same as your choice to bet red after three blacks.
Of course I agree here. The number of black entries decrease with each additional spin in the series which represents an increased chance to hit a red.Reyth
No the odds don't change because of what has hit in the past. Red is no more likely to hit than black.
The fact that the odds don't change, amounts to the same thing. 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 !! you are confusing who is 'making' and who is "accepting" the bet. The bettor here gets the 'odds' (7/1) the casino the 'odds on' (1/7)
If the next 3 spins are all red it makes no difference. I would have taken my profit and moved on.
I didn't change the odds. you are the guys who want to change the odds of a series.
I deliberately didn't mention the fact that Black has to produce 6 wins red only one. another advantage that you dispute !
The increase in chance is only apparent, because the odds of 1/7 remain until the last spin in the series.
Harry

For me its just that less occurrences take place on spin 4 than spin 3, less than on spin 5 than spin 4 and less than on spin 6 than spin 5 for the entire series for an ever increasing chance of landing a black the whole way through. It is statistical theory proven by experiment which these guys cannot do; they can only quote their improperly applied math theory and can't back it up with fact and reality (REALLY!).
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q9Vzk4AbEus/hqdefault.jpg)

they can only quote their improperly applied math theory and can't back it up with fact and reality (REALLY!).Reyth
It's not just my theory. It's history's as well.
Why do you suppose it is that mathematicians, gaming experts, and history would post incorrect information?
Could it possibly be that they're not wrong? Have you tried writing them in order to explain that they're wrong?
I wonder how your claims would be received on a the wizardofvegas forum, or on a math forum? Have you tried explaining to them how they're wrong?
http://vegasclick.com/gambling/fallacy.html

The gambler's fallacy is a deepseated cognitive bias and therefore very difficult to eliminate. For the most part, educating individuals about the nature of randomness has not proven effective in reducing or eliminating any manifestation of the gambler's fallacy. Participants in an early study by Beach and Swensson (1967) were shown a shuffled deck of index cards with shapes on them, and were told to guess which shape would come next in a sequence. The experimental group of participants was informed about the nature and existence of the gambler's fallacy, and were explicitly instructed not to rely on "run dependency" to make their guesses. The control group was not given this information. Even so, the response styles of the two groups were similar, indicating that the experimental group still based their choices on the length of the run sequence. Clearly, instructing individuals about randomness is not sufficient in lessening the gambler's fallacy.^{[19]}
And this in particular seems relevant given the kind of objections you guys are making:
Another possible solution that could be seen as more proactive comes from Roney and Trick, Gestalt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology) psychologists who suggest that the fallacy may be eliminated as a result of grouping. When a future event (ex: a coin toss) is described as part of a sequence, no matter how arbitrarily, a person will automatically consider the event as it relates to the past events, resulting in the gambler's fallacy. When a person considers every event as independent, however, the fallacy can be greatly reduced.^{[21]} In their experiment, Roney and Trick told participants that they were betting on either two blocks of six coin tosses, or on two blocks of seven coin tosses. The fourth, fifth, and sixth tosses all had the same outcome, either three heads or three tails. The seventh toss was grouped with either the end of one block, or the beginning of the next block. Participants exhibited the strongest gambler's fallacy when the seventh trial was part of the first block, directly after the sequence of three heads or tails. Additionally, the researchers pointed out how insidious the fallacy can be—the participants that did not show the gambler's fallacy showed less confidence in their bets and bet fewer times than the participants who picked "with" the gambler's fallacy. However, when the seventh trial was grouped with the second block (and was therefore perceived as not being part of a streak), the gambler's fallacy did not occur.
Roney and Trick argue that a solution to the problems caused by the gambler's fallacy could be, instead of teaching individuals about the nature of randomness, training people to treat each event as if it is a beginning and not a continuation of previous events. It is their belief that this would prevent people from gambling when they are losing in the vain hope that their chances of winning are due to increase.
The part highlighted in blue is interesting. It shows that although from a predictive point of view it doesn't matter whether you commit the gambler's fallacy or not, those who do commit it are more likely to gamble because they mistakenly think they have an advantage.

For me its just that less occurrences take place on spin 4 than spin 3, less than on spin 5 than spin 4 and less than on spin 6 than spin 5 for the entire series for an ever increasing chance of landing a black the whole way through. It is statistical theory proven by experiment which these guys cannot do; they can only quote their improperly applied math theory and can't back it up with fact and reality (REALLY!).
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q9Vzk4AbEus/hqdefault.jpg)
Reyth,
Your arrogance is breathtaking. I must admit I expected more impartiality from a moderator.

Look that line doesn't work here. Plenty of statisticians have been writing about this for decades. Its a problem within the field of statistics. The theory is misapplied and they don't bother to prove it. Statisticians who prove the theory find that streaks have diminishing occurences. Its as simple as that. REALLY.

Reyth,
Look up the word hubris.
And I agree...bring back the dunce cap.
(http://images.cafepress.com/image/27740088_400x400.jpg)

I'm not impartial. I have an opinion that I have proven over and over and over...

Reyeth,
Perhaps you can detail how it's misapplied and provide the correct math for everyone to see?
Show us your detailed proof. Show us the math that refutes the experts. Put up or shut up.

Look that line doesn't work here. Plenty of statisticians have been writing about this for decades.
Name one. Do you have a link?

The only place where I've seen anything like the views expressed here is the article on this site by R.D. Ellison. And I'll be adding a post exposing his nonsense soon.

I've already shown you too many times. You have run the "rope a dope line" of "show me show me" so many times I can quote you at least half a dozen times over the last 12 months. If you can't put it together by now than you obviously do not want to and I can't help you.
Its obvious you both are being intellectually dishonest for whatever reason it is that motivates you.
I show you guys and push the point to a new level and then you guys abandon thread and invade a different thread or create a new one like the other ones never existed.
I am sick of it. You guys aren't morons, you are simply disingenuous.
I'm not the only one that has watched this for months on end on this site. Its a pain especially when your views are so one dimensional.

If you're going to make an absurd claim, then back it up with proof. Where's the proof? Where's the math?

I don't have any you win.
Besides math is useless if it doesn't apply to real life. REALLY.

I have an opinion that I have proven over and over and over...Reyth
Above, those are your words, not mine.

Yes and you guys refuse to respond when it hits a new level and you start a new thread demanding the proof again like the other thread didn't even happen.
Its been going on for over a year. Its disgusting. You guys have an agenda, your are intellectually dishonest and your views are boring and repetitive and they discourage people from exploring the game of roulette.

Why did you claim that you had proof when you really didn't?

Because you repeat yourself over and over is if you are a robot with no soul.

You guys have an agenda, your are intellectually dishonest and your views are boring and repetitive and they discourage people from exploring the game of roulette.Reyth
Why did you claim that you had proof when you really didn't?Real
Because you repeat yourself over and over is if you are a robot with no soul.Reyth
Who did you say was intellectually dishonest? What was it you were saying about the dunce cap?

LOL. Grow up.

Who did you say was intellectually dishonest? What was it you were saying about the dunce cap?
Is this an invitation to kids' party?? What is this dunce caps you are blathering about?!
R.O.U.L.E.T.T.E.
E.P.N.U.V.E.R.V.
V.P.E.D.E.N.E.E.
E.O.V.I.N.D.N.R.
R.R.E.C. E. D Y.
S.T.N.R. N. T.
E.U. U. C. H.
D.N. S. Y. I.
I. N.
T. G.
Y.

The only place where I've seen anything like the views expressed here is the article on this site by R.D. Ellison. And I'll be adding a post exposing his nonsense soon.
Mike.
The best way to prove something is with actual results. Not theories, of questionable origin.
Who is the inventor of the gambler's fallacy anyway? Could it be that someone mentioned it years ago and it has transcended thru time? Like Einstein's statement that to win in roulette, you have to steal from the dealer?
Anyway in the picture below I have circled groups or 5 EC results and watched what happened after.
I chose 3 betting spins after the presence of 5 EC's either color or H/L numbers. If someone else chose 2 betting spins the results would've been similar with a much lesser risk.
Most of the time the result was the desired one. The two times that failed in 3 spins (circled in blue and magenta together), was recovered in the very next trigger. With a higher starting chip all that was lost in the previous round was recovered and made a profit. A $51020 loss is recovered with a $4080160 in the next round. (or are you gonna tell me how much I should have in my pocket)? Or a more conservative player could chose to recover in the next two rounds, thus limiting his risk.
Needless to say that two or more failures of this nature are extremely rare to happen in a row. Personally I have never seen more than three. With plenty money in one's pocket its not a problem at all. This is very important. The so called "black swan" appears sporadically. Not consecutively. This fact gives you time to recover. Or with plenty of monetary power you can overcome it, should the unthinkable happen.
If you have an example point me to the data. Do not point me to theories. Actual results convince me. Theories do not.
In the short run, the results do not always coincide with the true odds.
We see that a lot more often than not.
If it is it due to variance or an explosion in Mars we don't care. The fact of the matter is that it is what it is. If you can take advantage of this fact thru a system, then you are getting somewhere.
You keep saying, how can we ignore math experts and history? Leave history out because we will never know what every player has done in the thousands of casinos in this world. That is the only history that matters.
The doctrines of the experts and the gambler's fallacy pertains to a "long run" scenario. Where the roulette keeps on spinning and the player keeps on betting. INDEFINATELY.
For casino purposes yes the players keep on spinning indefinitely. As a whole. That is y the casinos never lose. Individually taken, it doesn't mean that I keep on spinning for ever. Because I walk away when I win. Thus interrupting the vicious cycle the casinos depend on.
Those who keep on spinning until either they take down the house or run out of gas are the true victims of the gambler's fallacy. And believe me there are a lot of them around.
If you are going to answer this post please do not point me to the experts and the gambler's fallacy doctrine. Point me to ACTUAL RESULTS. Then you might convince me.

Funny I was just thinking the same thing and I came back in to post it. I am sick of posting my spin results. You guys try posting spin results to prove your theories because until you have spin results that's all it is, just an unproven theory.

Here you go.
References[edit]
^ Jump up to:[size=0px]a[/size] [size=0px]b[/size] Lehrer, Jonah (2009). How We Decide. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 66.ISBN 9780618620111.
 Jump up^ Blog  "Fallacy Files" What happened at Monte Carlo in 1913.
 Jump up^ Gardner, Martin (1986). Entertaining Mathematical Puzzles. Courier Dover Publications. pp. 69–70. ISBN 9780486252117.
 Jump up^ Barron, Greg; Leider, Stephen (2010). "The role of experience in the Gambler's Fallacy".Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 23 (1): 117–129. doi:10.1002/bdm.676.ISSN 08943257.
 Jump up^ Darling, David (2004). "Roulette". The Universal Book of Mathematics: From Abracadabra to Zeno's Paradoxes. John Wiley & Sons. p. 278. ISBN 9780471270478.
 Jump up^ O'Neill, B.; Puza, B.D. (2004). "Dice have no memories but I do: A defence of the reverse gambler's belief". Reprinted in abridged form as: O'Neill, B.; Puza, B.D. (2005). "In defence of the reverse gambler's belief". The Mathematical Scientist 30 (1): 13–16.ISSN 03123685.
 ^ Jump up to:[size=0px]a[/size] [size=0px]b[/size] Burns, Bruce D.; Corpus, Bryan (2004). "Randomness and inductions from streaks: "Gambler’s fallacy" versus "hot hand"". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11 (1): 179–184.doi:10.3758/BF03206480. ISSN 10699384.
 ^ Jump up to:[size=0px]a[/size] [size=0px]b[/size] Tversky, Amos; Daniel Kahneman (1974). "Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases". Science 185 (4157): 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.PMID 17835457.
 ^ Jump up to:[size=0px]a[/size] [size=0px]b[/size] Tversky, Amos; Daniel Kahneman (1971). "Belief in the law of small numbers".Psychological Bulletin 76 (2): 105–110. doi:10.1037/h0031322.
 Jump up^ Tune, G. S. (1964). "Response preferences: A review of some relevant literature".Psychological Bulletin 61 (4): 286–302. doi:10.1037/h0048618. PMID 14140335.
 Jump up^ Gilovich, Thomas (1991). How we know what isn't so. New York: The Free Press. pp. 16–19. ISBN 0029117062.
 Jump up^ Rogers, Paul (1998). "The cognitive psychology of lottery gambling: A theoretical review". Journal of Gambling Studies 14 (2): 111–134. doi:10.1023/A:1023042708217.ISSN 10505350.
 ^ Jump up to:[size=0px]a[/size] [size=0px]b[/size] Sundali, J.; Croson, R. (2006). "Biases in casino betting: The hot hand and the gambler's fallacy". Judgment and Decision Making 1: 1–12.
 Jump up^ Keren, Gideon; Lewis, Charles (1994). "The Two Fallacies of Gamblers: Type I and Type II". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60 (1): 75–89.doi:10.1006/obhd.1994.1075. ISSN 07495978.
 Jump up^ Oppenheimer, D. M.; Monin, B. (2009). "The retrospective gambler's fallacy: Unlikely events, constructing the past, and multiple universes". Judgment and Decision Making 4: 326–334.
 Jump up^ Ayton, P.; Fischer, I. (2004). "The hothand fallacy and the gambler's fallacy: Two faces of subjective randomness?". Memory and Cognition 32: 1369–1378.doi:10.3758/bf03206327.
 Jump up^ Huber, J.; Kirchler, M.; Stockl, T. (2010). "The hot hand belief and the gambler's fallacy in investment decisions under risk". Theory and Decision 68: 445–462.doi:10.1007/s1123800891062.
 Jump up^ Xue, G.; Lu, Z.; Levin, I. P.; Bechara, A. (2011). "An fMRI study of risktaking following wins and losses: Implications for the gambler's fallacy". Human Brain Mapping 32: 271–281. doi:10.1002/hbm.21015.
 Jump up^ Beach, L. R.; Swensson, R. G. (1967). "Instructions about randomness and run dependency in twochoice learning". Journal of Experimental Psychology 75: 279–282.doi:10.1037/h0024979.
 Jump up^ Fischbein, E.; Schnarch, D. (1997). "The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions". Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 28: 96–105.doi:10.2307/749665.
 Jump up^ Roney, C. J.; Trick, L. M. (2003). "Grouping and gambling: A gestalt approach to understanding the gambler's fallacy". Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 57: 69–75. doi:10.1037/h0087414.

Palestis,
I have two questions for you.
You wait for an EC to come 3 times in a row and then you bet 10  20  40 for its opposite to occur within the next 3 spins, if you lose three times then you wait for another streak of 3 and you continue progression 80 160  320, if you lose again three times in a row you wait for new trigger in order to continue the martingale progression to 640  1280  2560, am I missing something?
If so,then it's like betting against streaks of 6 in three different times, my first question,do you consider a streak of 9 as three streaks of 3?
For example if you lose your first three bets, thus a streak of six but the streak continues to nine in a row, would you bet your next three here or not because it's the same streak which you have lost your first three bets??
My second question has to do with the selection of the EC pair, if you lose after six reds, your next trigger would be on black/red or on any EC pair with 3 in a row??
At the moment I cannot understand why this is better than a 9 step martingale, you have to win 511 times before you lose.
If you believe otherwise, could you explain why by betting against more smaller streaks is better than betting against one larger??

Real you have to quote others? Don't you do your own work?

Ryeth,
We've posted the math countless times, as well as the logic.
For example.
If the same number of pockets remain on the wheel from one spin to the next, and the dealer doesn't block a number from hitting again after it has hit, then why should the odds change from one spin to the next?
This is common sense, probability 101.
https://ignoranceanduncertainty.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/whydowefallforgamblersfallacy/

Ryeth,
We've posted the math countless times, as well as the logic.
For example.
If the same number of pockets remain on the wheel from one spin to the next, and the dealer doesn't block a number from hitting again after it has hit, then why should the odds change from one spin to the next?
This is common sense, probability 101.
https://ignoranceanduncertainty.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/whydowefallforgamblersfallacy/ (https://ignoranceanduncertainty.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/whydowefallforgamblersfallacy/)
Here we go again. Once again your "logic" sounds good but it fails to take into account diminishing appearances of streaks as each streak is added to the series but of course you will ignore this as real world results don't fit in with your theories and of course its hubris to talk about real world results instead of relying upon theoretical math that sounds good.
And btw, the literature you cited makes it clear that the GF is a THEORY, not fact. THEORY. You guys make it sounds like its a proven fact. Check it out for yourself instead of just copypaste like any child can do:
https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/43089/2/F0403.pdf (https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/43089/2/F0403.pdf)
How about this, we let you have your theories and you let us have ours and you quit lecturing us, huh? Nope? Not good enough for you? Have a higher agenda huh?

Palestis,
I have two questions for you.
You wait for an EC to come 3 times in a row and then you bet 10  20  40 for its opposite to occur within the next 3 spins, if you lose three times then you wait for another streak of 3 and you continue progression 80 160  320, if you lose again three times in a row you wait for new trigger in order to continue the martingale progression to 640  1280  2560, am I missing something?
If so,then it's like betting against streaks of 6 in three different times, my first question,do you consider a streak of 9 as three streaks of 3?
For example if you lose your first three bets, thus a streak of six but the streak continues to nine in a row, would you bet your next three here or not because it's the same streak which you have lost your first three bets??
My second question has to do with the selection of the EC pair, if you lose after six reds, your next trigger would be on black/red or on any EC pair with 3 in a row??
At the moment I cannot understand why this is better than a 9 step martingale, you have to win 511 times before you lose.
If you believe otherwise, could you explain why by betting against more smaller streaks is better than betting against one larger??
In my example from the Wiesbaden results it was 3 bets after 5 same EC's. Not 3.
Just to show Mike that in the real world things are different than what the theories suggest.
And I challenged Mike to show me actual results that prove me wrong. Well he has to examine years of daily results in Wiesbaden, for several roulettes and I doubt if he will find anything. If he does it will be such a rare event that only happens once in a blue moon.
Personally I don't play this system. Only if I see a long streak of the same EC , like 8+ spins, then I will bet 3 times the opposite and stop. (I have to agree with Reyth on this, that as the streak gets longer the harder it becomes to sustain itself).
There are many reasons y it is better to break up a progression in smaller sessions ( with a new trigger each time), instead of a single long progression.
First of all that's what research has proven. And I have done a lot of it. Years and years. Plus Harry's 50+ years of researching, it can't be a coincidence. Though I don't have the urgency to understand y it happens the way it happens. I just take it at its face value. Call it a paradox. Just as 12 numbers can be absent in 37 spins all day long, 12 numbers in the same dozen or column never.
And a derivative of that is that the risk is lower.
It's all about variance. A one time variance can go to any extend it choses.
Having the same exact variance repeated in many separate and consecutive occasions is much more rare than a one time crazy variance.
And last but not least a 9 step Marty starting with $10 it becomes.
1020408016032064012802560.
How many players are capable of betting $2560 to win $10? (they already lost $2550 up to that point and risk to lose another 2560 for a total potential loss of $5110). All that for $10. Only Bill Gates can do that and laugh about it. .
The average player cannot do that and most likely he will abandon the progression much earleir, either because he run out of money or he is too scared to continue for fear of losing his lifetime's savings. In an online casino with 10 cents minimum, of course you can bet 9 steps all day long. But in that case you play for fun, and not to make any serious money.
The second question is tricky. It's best to stick with the same EC. If you start with color you stay with color. That way you comply with the paradox of consecutive situations. But you can have 2 or more situations going simultaneously (H/LO/E) as long as you use the same criteria for all.

Palestis,
No one "invented" the gambler's fallacy, it's just basic logic. Neither is it mere "theory". It's selfevident that outcomes are independent because all pockets are "available" on every spin. You guys seem to acknowledge that this is the case but then backtrack and say that past outcomes can indicate future outcomes, or create systems which use past spins in attempt to get an advantage, without realizing that you're contradicting yourselves.
I have to agree with Reyth on this, that as the streak gets longer the harder it becomes to sustain itself
Which implies that jumping in after a streak of 5,6,7 or longer on the even chances gives you an advantage? You say no more "theory", but if I produce some evidence in the form of a simulation (using actual spins) that it does NOT then I'm sure you will dismiss that because "no one plays in the long run", and that anyway you wouldn't play that way, or that it's "unrealistic". There's always a getout clause.

And btw, the literature you cited makes it clear that the GF is a THEORY, not fact. THEORY. You guys make it sounds like its a proven fact. Check it out for yourself instead of just copypaste like any child can do:
https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/43089/2/F0403.pdf (https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/43089/2/F0403.pdf)
Actually that's quite an interesting paper but I don't think the author was trying to make the point that GF is just a "theory". I agree with him that the socalled "reverse gambler's fallacy" isn't a fallacy but is in fact a rational way to bet (and I think Real would agree with me). In other words, following the trend or betting on the most frequent numbers is the optimum strategy even when the device is designed to produce entirely "random" numbers.
But there's no case to be made for betting on cold numbers or for a streak to break, or waiting for virtual losses, and that's what "classic" GF is about.
And I can't help thinking that you guys wouldn't be so scathing and dismissive of mere "theory" if it happened to support YOUR views, LOL.

Ya we let you have your theory which is only self evident if you believe it and we don't criticize you. But of course that's not a two way street. You must think yourselves so much more intelligent than the rest of us huh? You feel impelled to criticize and lecture on your theory as if it is objective fact. When confronted with the evidence at least you have the smallest amount of intellectual honesty to admit that "yes but its useless so why bother" but you still can't bring yourself to the logical consistency that your theory is therefore not objective fact but insist on lecturing your "intellectual inferiors". Thanks.

Well no one can say we haven't got down to the 'nitty gritty' ! It would seem that tempers are getting a little frayed. So lets take a calm look at the claims.
It is obvious that the crux of the matter is the definition of INDEPENDENT in the definition of 'BERNOULLI TRIALS" .
The dictionary definition of independent is, FREE FROM THE CONTROL OR INFLUENCE OF OTHERS. In the present case we can accept that "others"means, other spins.
I think we can say with some authority, that no serious player believes that the spin we are about to see has been controlled and influenced by the spin we have just seen, or in fact any other spin.
Real produced a whole page of articles on the subject of GAMBLER"S FALLACY. Reyth produced one that discounted the idea.
One of Real's articles rated several definitions of Gamblers Fallacy. The one the author liked best was that the fallacy occurred, When the gambler falsely assumes that HISTORY of OUTCOMES effect future outcomes. The term history of outcomes highlights the basis of the argument.
Reyths FREQUENT OUTCOME APPROACH underlines it !!
"History of outcomes', of course, refers to any other spins. We have already admitted that the spins cannot in any way effect each other.
BUT, 'history of outcomes" and 'frequent outcome approach" can also refer to statistics. Statistics cannot in any way be said to influence or control the outcome of any spin. They are merely a tool that suggests that the average or "frequent outcome" could predict future outcomes !!
Harry

Palestis,
No one "invented" the gambler's fallacy, it's just basic logic. Neither is it mere "theory". It's selfevident that outcomes are independent because all pockets are "available" on every spin. You guys seem to acknowledge that this is the case but then backtrack and say that past outcomes can indicate future outcomes, or create systems which use past spins in attempt to get an advantage, without realizing that you're contradicting yourselves.
Well if it is not a facts supported invention, and it is just logic then it is a "vague" logic. And the gambler's fallacy itself is vague. Because it is wide open to interpretation. What it really means is that any results in one direction will be countered by an abundance of results in an opposite direction in an effort to achieve some kind of equilibrium. And this logic is fallacious due to the same number of pockets at all times. That's what is behind this logic
However, this is not always the logic behind every system. In the systems I subscribe to, all I want is ONE POSITIVE RESULT in a series of 3 or whatever number of tries. Then the system ends, until further notice.
Y is it so hard for you to understand that in 3 tries, where all I am looking for is at least one desired result, my probability of at least one success is about 87% on EC bets? I am not stepping outside probability. In fact I count on the probability to do its job. Y that 87% is so weak compared to 12.5%?
The gambler's fallacy was born after the famous 1913 Monte Carlo incident. What did the players do?
Started betting the opposite after a longer than usual steak of reds (or black).
Did they decide in advance how many spins to bet? No
They kept betting indefinitely until the opposite appeared. And all of them run out of money.
Some sooner some later. But they all did. And that's how the gambler's fallacy was born.
Betting a pre planned number of spins does not fall under this fallacy. Because it is a specific plan of betting a series, expecting the probability of those series to prevail. It is limited in length and it stops after one success. No need to go any further to cash in on the pending equilibrium. (if there is one).
Some players have a system where their greed propels them to go further and achieve more hits.
That's their problem.

Reyth, Palestis, Blue Angel,
Please take a second to think about the questions below.
1. Five reds have just hit in a row, why should black be more likely to hit on the next series of spins?
2.What physical force do you believe is changing the odds?
3. How can the odds change if the same number of pockets remain on the wheel?
4. How can the use of "triggers" possibly improve your chance of winning?
5. If you believe that "triggers" work, then what is the physical effect that they are having on the wheel?
Palestis,
Regarding your Weisbaden test. You're not the first person to misinterpret such results. It's because you haven't taken the time to read the link below. It's a link that I've posted before. http://vegasclick.com/gambling/fallacy.html (http://vegasclick.com/gambling/fallacy.html)
If you actually take the time to read it, and follow the logic then you will find the error in your testing and in your line of thinking.
Step back, read, study, learn.

. Five reds have just hit in a row, why should black be more likely to hit on the next series of spins?
Reyth, Palestis, Blue Angel,
I will try help you to answer . Say you throw dice with 4 red sides and 2 black . But you that not know see dice from distance. You observe 100 throws and see 70 reds and 30 blacks. Because you not know that is artificial dice you decide that in next 100 black have more posibilities to come. But that will not be, still will come about 67 reds.
I think in this example you understand that probability to come for black side is always less than for red  no matter how many reds are in row ??
If yes  then, what chang, if sides are divided not 42, but 33 ???

Notice that it doesn't matter where on the table you stick him, the chances of his next flip being heads is always 1/2. Wherever he is, it doesn't matter what happened before, his chances on his next toss are always 1 in 2.
How could it be otherwise? When you flip a coin you will get one result out of two possible outcomes. That's 1 in 2, or 1/2. Why and how could those numbers change just because you got a bunch of heads or tails already? They couldn't. The coin has no memory, it neither knows nor cares what was flipped before. If it's a 1outof2 coin, it will always be a 1outof2 coin.
That's part of the analysis in the Vegas click. I can understand their point.
But don't you see a serious flaw in their hypothesis? They carefully structure their question to suit their reasoning.
The word "next" coin flip is being emphasized. That means the very next flip. Or any flip taken individually the very next time
Well, if the question was changed from what are the odds of the next flip, to what are the odds of the next 3 flips and if at least one desired result occurs, the experiment stops, then you tell me what the odds are, under the new hypothesis. Are they still 50%?
3 flips, at least one, stop are the keywords here. In their reasoning the key word is just a general NEXT.
If the odds of at least one head are not 87.5% [1(.5x.5x.5)], then please tell me what the CUMULATIVE odds are. Just give me a number. My question is crystal clear.
As you can see depending on how you ask the question and the bettor's intended action , the odds vary substantially.
Don't let the betting after 5 blacks confuse you. Take it as a marker or as a trigger to bet.
The other way is to bet 3 red anytime. But wouldn't that cause you to bet more often and therefore be exposed to the HE much more often that waiting for 5 of something first?
Y does it have to be a gambler's fallacy when it could very well be a method of self discipline?

Well, seeing how 37 cannot be divided equally, we cannot get a true "coin flip" but in regards to cumulative odds, I do not rely upon a theoretical formula but actual wheel spins.
After 5 reds in a row, the chance of landing a black in 8 spins is:
99.517% or 3786672+1944236+998512+512628+263431+135196+69463+35598 out of 7783476
If you take 3 spins individually, by themselves, the odds of landing 1 black or red is:
86.46% or 3786138+1944734+998482 out of 7783481
If you take 1 spin in a row, by itself the odds are:
48.65% or 3787487 out of 7784265
The results fluctuate slightly due to normal variance.
Another problem with the speculative GF theory is that they refuse to acknowledge any expected & practical limit to results. The odds of 26 reds/blacks in a row is less than 1 in several quadrillion (I have yet to even demonstrate 26 in a row) but yet they insist that this must be the standard for all roulette analysis, as if 26 somehow equals infinity. I will operate under the practical expectation of 25 as my limit and know that I will likely never even see that in my lifetime.

Please take a second to think about the questions below.
1. Five reds have just hit in a row, why should black be more likely to hit on the next series of spins?
2.What physical force do you believe is changing the odds?
3. How can the odds change if the same number of pockets remain on the wheel?
4. How can the use of "triggers" possibly improve your chance of winning?
5. If you believe that "triggers" work, then what is the physical effect that they are having on the wheel?
Take a look at your 1st question. Next series of spins.
Vegas click doesn't base their answer on the next series of spins. It provides the odds for the very next spin. There is a big difference between your question and the question they give the answer to.
As far as your last question there must be a physical effect created by triggers.
How else would you have a ready made situation where you step in and take over? LOL

@ Real,
Did you read the academic paper which Reyth uploaded? It says that the optimum strategy when playing an (assumed) random game is to bet the outcomes which have occurred the most. This makes sense to me and is in fact the way I design my systems. As a specialist bias player, are you in agreement with this theory?
It seems to me that IF the wheel is biased so that outcomes are NOT equally likely (albeit only temporarily), then why should this strategy be fallacious? If you agree that it is not, then how do you explain the fact that if using this strategy you are still using past outcomes as a guide to future outcomes? On your view, outcomes are independent and that's that, so even betting the outcomes which have occurred the most is still a fallacy. Do you see the inconsistency in your position?

1. Five reds have just hit in a row, why should black be more likely to hit on the next series of spins?
With reference to my previous post and questions, assuming you agree that betting the 'majority' of outcomes is nonfallacious, why can you not interpret an 'outcome' as compound, meaning a SERIES of outcomes? So if the previous outcomes indicate that the majority of series of red (that is, run lengths) are less than or equal to 5, why would it be a fallacy to bet on black having seen a series of 5 reds? In that case, even though the chance of a red is the same as that of black, you are betting for the most frequent outcomes to continue.

(http://www.ramascreen.com/wpcontent/uploads/AndNowAWordFromOurSponsor1.png)
[You know Kav is right, open & allowed argumentation within a forum space is a good thing, just as illness helps strengthen the entire organism, disputation strengthens the quality of this forum. I have to admit I am forced to be much stronger and aware because of all this. Without it I would not have grown to where I am today. So back to...]
(http://wwwtc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/posters/lifeanddeathinwarzonevi.jpg)

Reyth, Palestis, Blue Angel,
Please take a second to think about the questions below.
1. Five reds have just hit in a row, why should black be more likely to hit on the next series of spins?
2.What physical force do you believe is changing the odds?
3. How can the odds change if the same number of pockets remain on the wheel?
4. How can the use of "triggers" possibly improve your chance of winning?
5. If you believe that "triggers" work, then what is the physical effect that they are having on the wheel?
1. Are every combination equal to happen?
I say yes, thus it doesn't make sense when 16 or 32 or 64...etc different but with equal probability combinations to occur only one of them indefinetelly.
If you dismiss my reasoning then probably makes sense to you also the following dialogue:
Good morning, my name is Sam.
Nice to meet you Sam.
What was your name?
Good morning,my name is Sam.
Nice to meet you Sam.
What was your name?
Good morning,my name is Sam.
Nice to meet you Sam.
What was your name?
...and so on till eternity!
According to DR Real, roulette is a patient with short term amnesia, but it can recall clearly long term memories in order to bring them back again!:D HAHAHAHA
2.The force of equal distribution
If you dismiss it, then you dismiss probability theory itself.
How could possibly the casinos would established each and every payout without probability theory?
Here is the greatest loophole, when casinos' payouts are fixed in regards to probability theory but what actually happens is always more or less far from the mean, from what probability dictates.
By assuming that in long term the events will balance out (which is true) in order the house edge to catch up with me who I'm backing variance, you also make a second assumption that when the other side is dominant,I would still back the runner instead of the leader, therefore this second assumption is false and house edge is irrelevant in my case at least.
3.Already answered
4.I prefer the word indication instead of trigger,regarding statistical analysis there are more favorable moments in the game,thus no matter how you call it,indicators,triggers,prequalification phase, it's the same thing in it's very sense.
Of course according your perspective the game is an endless flat thing, which I consider as a joke (bad one actually!)
5.Physical effects?? I don't know and I don't care about physical flaws and effects, I leave this kind of study to the technicians,my business is totally different brunch.
If someone is fallacious here, this is YOU!
Real get real!

Do you believe that the past spins are influencing the probably of the next series of spins?
Please demonstrate how the math is changing and provide an explanation as to what the physical effect is.

Do you believe that the past spins are influencing the probably of the next series of spins?
Please demonstrate how the math is changing and provide an explanation as to what the physical effect is.
And goes on and on...

@ Real,
Did you read the academic paper which Reyth uploaded? It says that the optimum strategy when playing an (assumed) random game is to bet the outcomes which have occurred the most. This makes sense to me and is in fact the way I design my systems. As a specialist bias player, are you in agreement with this theory?Rotoman
No I have not read it. I've never come across anything academic in nature from him. Do you have a link? Betting the numbers that have hit the most is the best strategy. The reason is obvious. If the wheel is defective and biased, then you would stand a greater chance of being on one of the biased numbers. Such numbers can theoretically hit at a rate that exceeds the house edge, providing the player with a real advantage.
It seems to me that IF the wheel is biased so that outcomes are NOT equally likely (albeit only temporarily), then why should this strategy be fallacious? If you agree that it is not, then how do you explain the fact that if using this strategy you are still using past outcomes as a guide to future outcomes? On your view, outcomes are independent and that's that, so even betting the outcomes which have occurred the most is still a fallacy. Do you see the inconsistency in your position?Rotoman
Using past outcomes to measure the fitness of the gaming device is not gambler's fallacy. It's actually a very wise thing to do, provided that you're measuring a statistically relevant number of spins.
Exploiting the wheel is possible, and encouraged.
Really

No I have not read it. I've never come across anything academic in nature from him. Do you have a link?
I don't seem to be able to post the link directly (I haven't posted enough yet), but you can find it in reply #50 in this thread.
So in your view it's not a fallacy to bet the most frequently occurring numbers even if you don't have any evidence that the wheel is biased?

Rotoman,
Tracking a wheel for defects and bias is unrelated to the hot hand gambler's fallacy.

Real,
You haven't answered my question, and I don't think you've read the article. My question was "is betting on the majority or most frequent outcomes a valid way to play roulette regardless of whether you think the wheel is biased" (or have any evidence that it is). Tracking a wheel is not the same as betting.
Wikipedia says about the reverse gambler's fallacy
The reversal can also be a fallacy in which a gambler may instead decide, after a consistent tendency towards tails, that tails are more likely out of some mystical preconception that fate has thus far allowed for consistent results of tails. Believing the odds to favor tails, the gambler sees no reason to change to heads. Again, the fallacy is the belief that the "universe" somehow carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes. However, it is not necessarily a fallacy as a consistent observed tendency towards one outcome may rationally be taken as evidence that the coin is not fair.
Ok so the "reverse" fallacy isn't necessarily a fallacy, but apparently it is when you are betting the opposite of the most frequent outcomes. But If past outcomes indicate that the table is "choppy" why is it a fallacy to bet for the table to continue to stay choppy? In that case you're betting for streaks to end. It seems to me that it's a matter of interpretation, so the gambler's fallacy as described is at best vague and confused.
But I agree that the line of thinking "red has hit a lot of times so black must catch up soon" is faulty, because if you believe that the wheel is fair in the sense that outcomes are independent, then you're contradicting yourself by inferring that a deviation must correct itself. The problem is that most people think "fair" means that outcomes must balance (not that outcomes are independent).

The circle is once again complete. I hesitate to parrot what I have said many times before So let me try a slightly different approach.
For about 100 years, up until the 2nd half of the 17th century mathematiciians believed that eventually (infinity) balance would occur. This belief became known as the "law of averages". Then based on a theory of Pascal, Bernoulli was able to "PROVE" what became known as "The Law of Large Numbers" Unfortunately the wording of the two laws is somewhat similar, and many people fail to grasp the significant difference !
This is the basis of Gambler's Fallacy ! To make matters worse I have even heard PhD's and Professors using the term 'the law of averages' when they mean the law of large numbers. Little wonder that the layman makes mistakes and commits 'gambler's fallacy'
"
The fact that past numbers cannot influence or control future numbers is "carved in stone".
. Nor can the statistics of past numbers influence or control future numbers, But they can be used to ASSIST in the PREDICTION of future numbers.
It is in this way that serious players use the stats. There is no certainty !! Nor is the advantage as positive as VB, perhaps like a weak bias, but with patience it can be exploited.
Harry

Harry,
I think most people realize that there is no certainty. After all that's what probability means. The point I was trying to make is that the concept of gambler's fallacy is ambiguous.

I think the lack of growth concerning the understanding of the speculative gambler's fallacy theory is due to the fact that it has been errantly applied as a hammer to discourage system players and presented in such a manner that if you don't believe that this speculative theory is solid fact (as improperly applied to roulette), then you are logically deficient; sort of a fear tactic if you will. Once we understand that it is just a theory, we see the man behind the curtain and he is the emperor without any clothes.

You haven't answered my question, and I don't think you've read the article. My question was "is betting on the majority or most frequent outcomes a valid way to play roulette regardless of whether you think the wheel is biased" (or have any evidence that it is). Tracking a wheel is not the same as betting.Rotoman
Rotoman,
On a random wheel or RNG betting the most frequent outcome would perform no better than betting on the worst outcome. It would not be a valid approach in such a game.
However, on the live wheel there can be physical reasons as to why some numbers perform better than others.
The best scenario would be to adequately track the wheel, the playing conditions, and to perform chi square and standard deviation calculations on the numbers in order to find the best numbers on which to bet. This would be a valid approach.
NOTE: Simply chasing the hottest numbers can lead a naive player to bet on random goats that could merely be mimicking bias. Some physics really should be applied before betting.
Betting on the most recent numbers to have hit, and the hottest numbers on the live wheel will still perform better than betting on the worst numbers over a series of trials. For example: If you were to line up 100 live wheels from various casinos and you were to compare betting on the hottest numbers in relation to the coldest numbers, the hottest numbers will outperform the cold numbers overall, because of physical defects that may be causing bias. Furthermore the coldest numbers will likely perform worse than probability would dictate because of the biases.

Reyth,
The gambler's fallacy is a result of people misinterpreting basic probability and logic.
In short, it's a comprehension problem for people that suck at math.

As a theory I completely agree.

Try to onderstand the short run and long run theory. A player plays always very small sessions Maths and statistic rules ar patial value.
Experience players cannot predict the result of the next spin.
HE is only valid for long run experiments.
Try to find with the chi and square formulars the winning numbers. At that moment the casino annouces we will close over 5 minutes. The next day you can start again.The advantage is , you have no time to play

Dobbelsteen,
I hope you realize that short run sessions + short run sessions =eventually add up to long run sessions. A series of short games is the same thing as one long game.

Dobbelsteen,
I hope you realize that short run sessions + short run sessions =eventually add up to long run sessions. A series of short games is the same thing as one long game.
What kind of chi square manifestations could you see when the dealer is changing every half to 1 hour ?
By proposing to bet 5 last numbers not only you contradict yourself but also misleading many.
What if those last 5 numbers have no proximity to each other?
Is this still a bet according to you?
If you really believe in wheel bias, then your bets must be continuous sectors and not scattered numbers around the wheel layout which it might be the case with the last 5 numbers.
Your false prophecies and smoke and mirrors cheap tricks could deceive only the naive!
I still don't understand why someone like you who supposed to make millions out of roulette wants to expose the wrongdoings of others from one forum to the next!
Are you getting paid for dictating what's wrong and what's right?
What's your real motivation?

What kind of chi square manifestations could you see when the dealer is changing every half to 1 hour ?Blue Angel
What makes you think that you should test chi square every half hour? That's absurd.
By proposing to bet 5 last numbers not only you contradict yourself but also misleading many.Blue Angel
I'm not proposing that here.
What if those last 5 numbers have no proximity to each other?
Is this still a bet according to you?Blue Angel
Why would proximity matter if you were betting the last five numbers? Why are you wanting to bet only the last five numbers? It would be one way in which you would have a greater chance of being on a biased number, but if a wheel is biased, why wouldn't you want to adequately track it to find the true biased numbers?
If you really believe in wheel bias, then your bets must be continuous sectors and not scattered numbers around the wheel layout which it might be the case with the last 5 numbers.Blue Angel
Why? Why do you believe that only sectors can be biased?
Your false prophecies and smoke and mirrors cheap tricks could deceive only the naive!Blue Angel
What cheap tricks?

By proposing to bet 5 last numbers not only you contradict yourself but also misleading many.Blue Angel
I'm not proposing that here.Real
YOU ARE A GREAT LIAR!
If you really believe in wheel bias, then your bets must be continuous sectors and not scattered numbers around the wheel layout which it might be the case with the last 5 numbers.Blue Angel
Why? Why do you believe that only sectors can be biased? Do you understand what causes bias?Real
Are you trying to tell me that a biased wheel could pinpoint a sector of 4 numbers for example 32,15,21 and 2 BUT THE TWO MIDDLE NUMBERS (19,4) OF THIS SECTOR COULD BE INACTIVE??
Is this what you are trying to say??

Are you trying to tell me that a biased wheel could pinpoint a sector of 4 numbers for example 32,15,21 and 2 BUT THE TWO MIDDLE NUMBERS (19,4) OF THIS SECTOR COULD BE INACTIVE??
Is this what you are trying to say??Blue Angel
What do you mean by"pinpoint"? When you talk about a biased wheel, to what type of bias are you referring???

Are you trying to tell me that a biased wheel could pinpoint a sector of 4 numbers for example 32,15,21 and 2 BUT THE TWO MIDDLE NUMBERS (19,4) OF THIS SECTOR COULD BE INACTIVE??
Is this what you are trying to say??Blue Angel
What makes you think that you should test chi square every half hour? That's absurd.
What do you mean by"pinpoint"? When you talk about a biased wheel, to what type of bias are you referring???
So what can you see in just 60 spins per dealer??
The kind of bias you find on titled wheels, defected, flawed as you call them.
Why, you think there are more bias categories regarding roulette than those I have just mentioned?

So what can you see in just 60 spins per dealer??Blue Angel
Why are you wanting to only look at the last 60 spins of a dealer? The kind of bias you find on titled wheels, defected, flawed as you call them.
Why, you think there are more bias categories regarding roulette than those I have just mentioned?Blue Angel
Blue Angel,
There are number biases and there are section biases. Some of the causes are: loose pocket inserts, loose lobes of the pocket compartment, rise and fall of pocket compartments, "breathing" of the compartments, loose frets, number tape ridges, wheel head wobbles, poor assembly, splayed, twisted or bent frets, warped cones, debris, residue, and the list goes on.
Then there are biases that are related to the ball drop distribution as the ball leaves the ball track and strikes the deflectors on the apron. This type of bias is cause by worn ball tracks with ridges, cracks, debris, tilt, poorly assembled and placed deflectors, residue, etc...
When I was referring to wheel bias earlier in the thread I was referring to numbers biases found on rotor, not biases related to the ball drop distribution on the apron of the wheel.
Are you trying to tell me that a biased wheel could pinpoint a sector of 4 numbers for example 32,15,21 and 2 BUT THE TWO MIDDLE NUMBERS (19,4) OF THIS SECTOR COULD BE INACTIVE??Blue Angel
Individual number biases can be very real, as can be sectors. It's not only possible for individual numbers to positively biased and adjacent to negatively biased numbers, but it's relatively common if a wheel is biased.

When I was referring to wheel bias earlier in the thread I was referring to numbers biases found on rotor, not biases related to the ball drop distribution on the apron of the wheel.Real
That's what I was talking about.
Individual number biases can be very real, as can be sectors. It's not only possible for individual numbers to positively biased and adjacent to negatively biased numbers, but it's relatively common if a wheel is biased.Real
That's what you call "number bias" while others may call it "hot numbers", but actually you are talking about the same thing with different terminologies.
So why someone who prefers to back "hot sectors" without the technical part is wrong?
Analyzing every f..king screw at the roulette table justifies the betting selections?!

That's what you call "number bias" while others may call it "hot numbers", but actually you are talking about the same thing with different terminologies.
So why someone who prefers to back "hot sectors" without the technical part is wrong?
Analyzing every f..king screw at the roulette table justifies the betting selections?!Blue Angel
A hot number is not necessarily a biased number. It can be the result of nothing more than a random fluctuation and may mimic a biased number in the short term. A biased number is a number that hits more frequently than it should because of a defect. It carries a statistical significance that can be calculated over time.
A hot number stands a slightly greater chance of being a positive biased number than a cold number.
A cold number stands a slightly greater chance of being a negatively biased number than a hot number.

There are number biases and there are section biases. Some of the causes are: loose pocket inserts, loose lobes of the pocket compartment, rise and fall of pocket compartments, "breathing" of the compartments, loose frets, number tape ridges, wheel head wobbles, poor assembly, splayed, twisted or bent frets, warped cones, debris, residue, and the list goes on. Then there are biases that are related to the ball drop distribution as the ball leaves the ball track and strikes the deflectors on the apron. This type of bias is cause by worn ball tracks with ridges, cracks, debris, tilt, poorly assembled and placed deflectors, residue, etc...
This is FRIGHTENING.
My theory has always been that RNG wheels are more reliable for true random.

Real on another place on the forum I have explained you in Jip and Janner language that special small events are together not a a large random row.!!!!!

Dobble, this is very interesting. Why do you think this is?

Real,
I think you've missed the point of the paper which Reyth linked to. If you know nothing whatsoever about why the outcomes are distributed as they are then the best strategy is to let the wheel (outcomes) make the decision for you as to what you bet. i.e. bet the most frequent outcomes. Betting that way does not involve any form of fallacy. As you point out, there are many forms of bias, and as the author of the paper says,
Contrary to the common approach, it is the authors’ belief that some processes,
such as the rolling of a die or the tossing of a coin produce outcomes that may not be
perfectly uniform, in the sense that the longrun proportions of outcomes may differ.
After all, in order to distinguish between the faces of a die or coin, these faces must be
made to be nonidentical so that the items themselves must be nonsymmetric. This
nonsymmetry gives us plausible reason to believe that the long run proportions of
outcomes may not be equal.
While it's unlikely that red will show any bias compared to black (or viceversa), it's not inconceivable that there may be some physical cause as to why there may appear to be (for example, the black pockets may not have been cleaned as thoroughly as the red ones, because they don't show up the dirt as clearly). That may seem farfetched, but the point is that if you are entirely in the dark as to the causes of an apparent tendency, betting on the current trend is the rational thing to do.
And even when the gambler might appear to be committing GF (in the classic sense)
In the absence of explicit reasoning for the belief it is rather presumptuous to say
that the argument behind the gambler’s belief is unsound, and it is outright incorrect
to say that the argument is a logical fallacy (since the latter is an error in logical
argument that is independent of the truth of its premises).
Quite rightly, Cowan finds that the argument (if there is one), while often unsound, is not fallacious:
The gambler’s argument may very well be valid in the sense that if the premises are true,
the conclusion is also true, but in many cases the premises required are simply not true. ...
t is the logician’s job to find out what is necessary to get the conclusion. Then we can
see whether what would have to be true for the conclusion to be evidenced is in fact true.
In fact, the usual informality of the assertion of the gambler’s belief and the lack of
explicit reasoning sometimes makes it difficult to establish what is even being
asserted. The assertion of the belief is usually framed or timed so as to suggest that it
is at least a denial of the exchangeability of observations, but even this may be
uncertain. Moreover, it is not always clear whether the gambler is looking to all
previous tosses of the coin or just the last run of tosses as evidence for the conclusion
that a tail is due.
So very often it's not the case that the gambler is being illogical, as you seem to think, and never tire of telling us.

rotaman,
Real,
I think you've missed the point of the paper which Reyth linked to. If you know nothing whatsoever about why the outcomes are distributed as they are then the best strategy is to let the wheel (outcomes) make the decision for you as to what you bet. i.e. bet the most frequent outcomes. Betting that way does not involve any form of fallacy. As you point out, there are many forms of bias, and as the author of the paper says,
The problem with that is it's very subjective and open to interpretation. How far back do you look for the most frequently hitting numbers? 20 spins? 50? 100? It could just be a random fluctuation. For the method to be objective you have to also back up your raw data with some kind of inspection of the wheel based on PHYSICS, otherwise you're essentially just guessing.

Rotoman,
On a live wheel, using no calculations or physics, the best strategy would simply be to play the hottest numbers. If by chance the wheel is sufficiently biased, the player will have the greatest chance of getting an edge and winning. This would not be gambler's fallacy because the player is not attempting to beat the game, but is attempting to exploit inefficiencies in the gaming device.

This would not be gambler's fallacy because the player is not attempting to beat the game, but is attempting to exploit inefficiencies in the gaming device.
Well ok but that just goes to show that in the absence of explicit reasoning regarding a strategy it isn't fair to tar all systems with the GF brush.
Even an AP has to beat the game, in the sense that they have to overcome the unfair payouts.

Even an AP has to beat the game, in the sense that they have to overcome the unfair payouts.
Over time beating the game is not possible. This why we attempt to beat the wheel.

YAWN!

YAWN!
YO!

Well ok but that just goes to show that in the absence of explicit reasoning regarding a strategy it isn't fair to tar all systems with the GF brush.Rotoman
Rotoman,
Systems that attempt to exploit hot numbers on the live wheel are superior to systems that attempt to exploit cold numbers for physical reasons. So yes, you are correct in that not every system deserves to be tarred with the gambler's fallacy brush. Some systems actually are a little better than others when played on the live wheel.
Really.
(http://dyingread.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/troll.jpg)