BetVoyager Portal

Author Topic: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?  (Read 1361 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 #30 on: March 06, 2018, 05:33:03 PM »
I have a problem with phallis
 

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2018, 05:37:15 PM »
.....and 180 guests, 24 users. Thats what I do and I do it well. I'm off to the casino, later guys!

Ken
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Mike

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 187 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #32 on: March 06, 2018, 05:47:01 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

Not necessarily. Reyth says that GF is only an opinion, but that's a misunderstanding of the nature of GF and other fallacies (what philosophers would call a "category mistake"). If GF was a statement of belief or a proposition, then it could be an opinion, but GF is an ARGUMENT, and an invalid one, which is why it's a fallacy.

For GF the argument is : The wheel is fair (not biased), some numbers haven't hit for a long time, therefore they must hit soon. But for a wheel to be considered "fair" the outcomes must not only be unbiased but also independent, so the one who commits GF is contradicting himself by believing that the numbers are due. He doesn't understand independence very well.

So strictly speaking you can't accuse someone of GF if they don't explicitly or implicitly make that argument. It's not really about the wheel;  that "the wheel has no memory" is not the reason why GF is a fallacy, and is besides the point, because the outcomes may NOT be independent! (though it's a reasonable assumption to make). The fallacy is in the contradiction.

If you look at a lot of past spins and decide that it's a good idea to bet black after 10 reds because that's what the spin history and stats are telling you, that's NOT gambler's fallacy.

Confused?  ;D

So mr j, what's your REASON for betting on hot numbers? Give us your best argument.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2585
  • Thanked: 577 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #33 on: March 06, 2018, 05:52:43 PM »
"If you look at a lot of past spins and decide that it's a good idea to bet black after 10 reds because that's what the spin history and stats are telling you, that's NOT gambler's fallacy. "

Really Mike ?
 

Mike

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 187 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2018, 06:59:15 PM »
Really. Some OTHER fallacy may be involved, but it's not GF to structure your betting around past history or stats, per se. It only becomes a fallacy when there is a logical contradiction involved. Think about someone who has collected numbers and believes that a wheel is biased (based on the data), and consequently bets on the apparently biased numbers. But he may have recorded an insufficient number of spins to warrant his conclusion. It's not GF, but he may still not have any real advantage.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 07:03:59 PM by Mike »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2585
  • Thanked: 577 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #35 on: March 06, 2018, 08:36:32 PM »
Mike
I am stating  the generally accepted meaning of "The Gamblers Fallacy ".
Check it on Wiki , for instance, as you  seem to accept their definitions of things.

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future. It may also be stated as the belief that, if something happens less frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen more frequently in the future. In situations where the outcome being observed is truly random and consists of independent trials of a random process, this belief is false. The fallacy can arise in many situations, but is most strongly associated with gambling, where it is common among players.

What YOU think is irrelevant to the generally accepted definition. Otherwise, other definitions would be up for " clarification " . And arguments  would ensue  - as sometimes ( ? ) in this forum. Arguments about definitions.
 

cht

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #36 on: March 07, 2018, 01:33:03 AM »
Past 50000 spins shows 60% hit rate for red. You believe this hit rate will remain based on statistical count. That's gamblers fallacy no different from the statistcal study of 1000 10 consecutive reds has shown 60% hit rate for red to follow the next spin.
 

Mike

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 187 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #37 on: March 07, 2018, 08:40:36 AM »
Scepticus,

My definition is completely consistent with the one on Wiki. It seems you haven't understood or read it carefully (the wiki definition) because after the first part it says

Quote
In situations where the outcome being observed is truly random and consists of independent trials of a random process, this belief is false.

So what makes the argument a fallacy is the ASSUMPTION that outcomes are independent, because if that's true, then it is NOT true that outcomes will "catch up". The premise that outcomes are independent must be in the argument, either implicitly or explicitly, in order for the argument to be invalid. If it's there, then the conclusion that outcomes will catch up doesn't follow, so it's a fallacious argument. It's irrelevant whether outcomes really are independent or not; that's a matter for empirical investigation.

Look at cht's example:

Quote
Past 50000 spins shows 60% hit rate for red. You believe this hit rate will remain based on statistical count. That's gamblers fallacy

No, it's not. Where is the premise that outcomes are independent? And in fact, it's sensible to assume in this case that outcomes are biased in favour of red because the probability that this would occur by chance is astronomically low.  But this isn't the same as the REVERSE GF, which in order to be classed as such, must also imply independence between outcomes. So the hot number system advocates aren't really committing reverse GF if they believe that that's just the way the wheel behaves, ie that repeats are more numerous than not, and they are trying to capitalize on it. It's a subtle point.

AP's are often accused by system players that they use past spins, so, (they continue) why can't us system players do it too? What makes collecting past spins for the purpose of discovering possible bias different from the way most system players use past spins?

Well I've just explained what the difference is.There's a lot more to GF than meets the eye.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 08:42:54 AM by Mike »
 

cht

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #38 on: March 07, 2018, 10:34:53 AM »
The assumption is that the wheel is not bias - it generates random results.

Future events has no memory of past event so to assume there's a tendency for reds to continue for future spin is GF.

In the next 50000 spins there might be a 60% hit rate for black and so on...

Especially where periodic calibration maintenance work is done.
 

Mike

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 187 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #39 on: March 07, 2018, 11:39:35 AM »
cht,

If the assumption is that the wheel is unbiased, the data is inconsistent with that assumption, as I've already said. To be random, results must be unbiased AND independent. Contrary to what some believe, they are not mutually exclusive. Those who commit GF forget about independence, or don't understand it very well, or both.

The evidence is overwhelming that the outcomes are biased. They may be independent (most likely) or not, but that's irrelevant. Without some reference to independence, you cannot say that believing the hit rate will continue is an example of GF (actually it would be reverse GF). GF is all about dependence/independence, it has nothing to do with bias.

So your belief that the hit rate will remain at 60% is quite reasonable; there is no GF being committed here.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2585
  • Thanked: 577 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #40 on: March 07, 2018, 01:29:47 PM »
Mike
You said
"If you look at a lot of past spins and decide that it's a good idea to bet black after 10 reds because that's what the spin history and stats are telling you, that's NOT gambler's fallacy. "

Please explain what NOT means .
 
The following users thanked this post: mr j

GIAJJENNO

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Thanked: 129 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #41 on: March 07, 2018, 01:56:02 PM »
This is the msot filisophic roulette site I have ever seen. Here is everything.
 

Mike

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
  • Thanked: 187 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #42 on: March 07, 2018, 02:04:11 PM »
Please explain what NOT means .

Sure, it means the opposite of IS.  ;D

 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2585
  • Thanked: 577 times
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #43 on: March 07, 2018, 02:06:04 PM »
 ;D
 

mr j

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1039
  • Thanked: 329 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: OMG, definitions. Has it come down to this?
« Reply #44 on: March 08, 2018, 03:22:48 PM »
"So mr j, what's your REASON for betting on hot numbers?" >> I didn't see this Mike, sorry about that.

Well, we know 2peats become 3s and 3peats become 4s. Granted, we dont know the EXACT spin this will happen but we do know the RANGE that it'll happen. In 76 spins, we wont have every number hit twice on the head. Besides, I remember plenty of posts from the "almighty ones" saying, a person could POSSIBLY be betting on hot numbers that just so happen to ALSO be on the same list (bias) that the "almighty ones" were betting on. That seems to be ok?

If my list of numbers I will be betting on matches your list, does that offend you?

Ken