Superior

Author Topic: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?  (Read 1360 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1615 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2018, 04:38:08 PM »
The AP position is that they are "scientific" because they are using a physical cause to determine the best numbers to bet.  The physics of statistics is just as scientific and the fact they keep bringing up the GF means they need one.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2585
  • Thanked: 577 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2018, 04:45:32 PM »
Correct Dane
The danger of not accepting the generally accepted definition is that almost anything could be classed as Gamblers
Fallacy. Even thinking that you can win at roulette could be classed as the Gamblers Fallacy .Oh!  Well ! Hold on a minute .....
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2018, 04:51:38 PM »
Its a mean circle guys. If we admit to "this", then that must mean we are guilty of "that". (lol)

Betting on DUE numbers, yes, gamblers fallacy. I have also read, betting on hot/repeaters is also GF.

Some say yes, some say no. I was told at another board, betting on number(s) because they have hit 2 (or 3 or 4) times, is *NOT* using past information. That was the point of this here thread.

Ken
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 05:00:18 PM by mr j »
 

cht

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2018, 04:55:53 PM »
If there are 10 reds and you believe the next spin is black because there's too many reds,  that's gamblers fallacy.

If there are 10 reds and you believe the next spin is red because the reds are in season, that's inverse gamblers fallacy.

In 37 spins there are on average 13 repeaters and if at spin 20 there appear 6 repeaters, therefore you believe there are more repeaters that will appear by 37 spins based on the knowledge of the expected average,  is that gamblers fallacy ? No.

In all cases the believe is based on past info.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 05:01:35 PM by cht »
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1615 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2018, 04:58:58 PM »
Well you see I ENTIRELY REJECT the AP follower thesis about past spins and "the wheel has no memory" and all their horsecrap that they are selling.  My thinking is not constrained by any of it -- OK, I admit I consult it to make sure I am sane from time to time but my core beliefs/practices are simply free of the influence of their phony arguments.

The entire session is one big statistical picture that grows more detailed with each spin.  Every entry in the sequence is 100% significant.  I don't use past spins, I use probability and statistics to analyze the entire sequence.

Its a straw man argument.  That's why I don't argue.  Its the same as someone telling me the sky is purple.  They are free to have their opinions whether I agree with them or not.

The reason why they refuse to admit that its only their opinion (as reponsible mathematicians and statisticians do) is because the only way they can even survive in a gambler's forum is because they have to LIE and pretend their opinion is objective fact.

Think about it.  How much commotion could they stir up if they go around hijacking posts saying "I don't think what you are doing will work".  They already know people ignore their posts by default and so the only way to get survival value is to fire for effect.

If you are reading this and don't like what I am saying then convince them to stop lying and give system players equal space.  Its because they lie that I fight -- they are intellectually holding people down with their lies.

People don't know they are lying.  I have seen new players fall under their influence, not realizing that they have been lied to.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 05:16:15 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2585
  • Thanked: 577 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2018, 05:03:01 PM »
cht
The question is " what is meant by the Gamblers Fallacy " ?
Can you have several different definitions ? How can you have a sensible discussion if there are several definitions ?
Oh ! Well ! Hold on  a minute....... 
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 05:12:10 PM by scepticus »
 

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2018, 05:05:10 PM »
 "I don't use past spins, I use probability and statistics to analyze the entire sequence.

Its a straw man argument.  That's why I don't argue.  Its the same as someone telling me the sky is purple" >>>

I have this buddy, I could have a pencil sitting on a desk. He could make an argument, "prove its a pencil".

There are people out there like that. Have you ever been to Japan? No? Then how do you know it exists?
Crap like that etc.

Ken
 

Mike

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 187 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2018, 05:12:21 PM »
If there are 10 reds and you believe the next spin is red because the reds are in season, that's inverse gamblers fallacy.

Actually it's the REVERSE gambler's fallacy. The INVERSE gambler's fallacy is something different. The reverse GF is not necessarily a fallacy because "hot" numbers might indicate a bias. But the "standard" GF is ALWAYS a fallacy because numbers never have a tendency to catch up or equalize in absolute terms, only the proportions tend to uniformity. 

So yes mr j, you're guilty of the reverse GF.  :)

There is no tendency for a number which has repeated in the last X spins to repeat in the next Y spins.
 
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 05:16:01 PM by Mike »
 
The following users thanked this post: cht

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2585
  • Thanked: 577 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2018, 05:13:29 PM »
Reyth
What do you base your stats on if not Past Spins ?
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2018, 05:16:14 PM »
@Mike >> Soooo, not all systems/methods (not AP) are gamblers fallacy based? I have heard for YEARS.....if you are playing a system/method (not AP), then it must be GF related.

Ken
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 05:26:49 PM by mr j »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

cht

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2018, 05:16:50 PM »
If there are 10 reds and you believe the next spin is red because the reds are in season, that's inverse gamblers fallacy.

Actually it's the REVERSE gambler's fallacy. The INVERSE gambler's fallacy is something different. The reverse GF is not necessarily a fallacy because "hot" numbers might indicate a bias. But the "standard" GF is ALWAYS a fallacy because numbers never have a tendency to catch up or equalize in absolute terms, only the proportions tend to uniformity. 

So yes mr j, you're guilty of the reverse GF.  :)

There is no tendency for a number which has repeated in the last X spins to repeat in the next Y spins.
Yes you are correct.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1615 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2018, 05:18:45 PM »
I use probability and statistics.  Even asking the question is comitting the AP Fallacy.
 

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2018, 05:20:12 PM »
"So yes mr j, you're guilty of the reverse GF" >> but I have already admitted to this and I said I was ok with that LABEL. Matter of fact, I am the only one who has admitted to it.

Ken
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2585
  • Thanked: 577 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #28 on: March 06, 2018, 05:27:43 PM »
Ken
Whether others agree or not YOU are a REAL Player.
Your questions are designed to ask others to THINK  !
Thinking is in short supply in this forum . IMO of course  !
 
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 #29 on: March 06, 2018, 05:32:24 PM »
MOST of my past threads over the years are *NOT* designed to argue, that is THE TRUTH.

I ask these things, in order to get members to think about logic and WHY they believe in xxxx?

Kicking a** at the CASINO is a past goal of mine, its off the list. I much prefer "thinking" type of threads.

Ken