Bitcoin jackpot 728x90

Author Topic: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?  (Read 22112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3933
  • Thanked: 1261 times
Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #90 on: January 08, 2016, 11:22:23 AM »
Dobble, this is very interesting.  Why do you think this is?
 

rotaman

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #91 on: January 08, 2016, 12:36:45 PM »
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,

Quote
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 long-run 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 non-identical so that the items themselves must be non-symmetric. This
non-symmetry 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 vice-versa), 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 far-fetched, 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)-

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2016, 12:38:54 PM by rotaman »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #92 on: January 08, 2016, 03:16:31 PM »
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.
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #93 on: January 08, 2016, 06:04:15 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2016, 06:06:08 PM by Real »
 

rotaman

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #94 on: January 09, 2016, 03:43:43 PM »
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 03:47:26 PM by rotaman »
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #95 on: January 09, 2016, 06:10:46 PM »
Quote
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.
 

rotaman

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #96 on: January 10, 2016, 05:52:04 PM »
YAWN!
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1571
  • Thanked: 239 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #98 on: January 10, 2016, 11:50:54 PM »

Quote
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.


« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 11:53:37 PM by Real »