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 so-called "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.