BetVoyager Portal

Author Topic: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?  (Read 1362 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« on: March 06, 2018, 02:35:39 PM »
I'm making this up as an example......I track numbers until I get a number(s) that has hit twice. I bet that number(s) until I get to my 37/38 total. The 33 has hit twice, I start betting on it.

Am I using past numbers/information FOR THE PURPOSE of my current/future bets? If I am, is this now gamblers fallacy? If no, why?

Ken

 

Haywood

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2018, 02:41:32 PM »
For proper discussion we must first agree upon a common definition of gambler fallacy.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 02:45:00 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: scepticus, Reyth

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2018, 02:44:50 PM »
Of what word?...."past".

I sure hope we are not gonna debate what the "past' means? >> Within a 37/38 spin cycle, not 800 spins ago.

Ken
 

MickyP

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1316
  • Thanked: 562 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2018, 02:48:39 PM »
 ;D Go Ken go!

Define Gamblers Fallacy.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2585
  • Thanked: 577 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2018, 02:53:52 PM »
The Gamblers Fallacy is that he thinks " something " is DUE because it hasn't happened  for some time.
" something " being Red/Black -  A dozen -column etc.
Nothing more- Nothing less.
 

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2018, 02:54:14 PM »
@MickyP >> Thats PART of my question/point. So if we use past spins (most of us do), is it NOW gamblers fallacy?

I'm more concerned with the first part of my question.

Ken
 

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2018, 02:57:57 PM »
The Gamblers Fallacy is that he thinks " something " is DUE because it hasn't happened  for some time.
" something " being Red/Black -  A dozen -column etc.
Nothing more- Nothing less.

So this is the only example of gamblers fallacy? I can go the extra mile here. I use past spins and I do think I am under the LABEL of gamblers fallacy whether I like it or not.

If you are betting on xxxx (something has already happened), how is that not gamblers fallacy?

Ken
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1615 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2018, 03:04:41 PM »
We should remember that the Gambler's Fallacy is only a statistical theory that is believed widely but cannot actually be proved.
 

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2018, 03:06:58 PM »
This is my bigger question >>

I'm making this up as an example......I track numbers until I get a number(s) that has hit twice. I bet that number(s) until I get to my 37/38 total. The 33 has hit twice, I start betting on it.

Am I using past numbers/information FOR THE PURPOSE of my current/future bets?

Ken
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1615 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2018, 03:09:04 PM »
So its a statistical question which is:

When a number appears twice, is it more likely to appear again within a specified timeframe?

If that isn't the question or at least similar to the question, why do it, right?
 

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2018, 04:09:45 PM »
"When a number appears twice, is it more likely to appear again within a specified timeframe?" >> I could careless about that. If I am betting on a number(s) that has hit twice, am I using PAST results/information?

Ken
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1615 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2018, 04:22:24 PM »
Isn't that like asking "If I see the sky is blue, am I using my eyes to see it?".  If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there, does it make a sound?  What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Are you doing zen or something?
 
The following users thanked this post: mr j

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2018, 04:24:40 PM »
Zen? (lol) That was kinda funny.

I'm in a heated debate at another forum, thats why I asked. More opinions from others would be great.

Ken
 

cht

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2018, 04:26:38 PM »
Ofc you are using past info. 

No,  it's not gamblers fallacy.

It's inverse gamblers fallacy.  :)
 

Dane

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
  • Thanked: 177 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2018, 04:36:42 PM »
It has come down to lack of proper understanding and definitions. Ken has earlier clearly taught us that flat betting could be 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5, and he was right.  When it comes to GamblerĀ“s Fallacy he seems to be a victim of it in accordance with this (quoting from Investopedia):
"Also known as The Monte Carlo Fallacy, the GamblerĀ“s Fallacy occurs when an individual erroneosly beliefs that a certain random event is less likely or more likely, given a previous event or a series of events. This line of thinking is incorrect because past events do not change the probability that certain events will occur in the future".