### Author Topic: Gambler's Fallacy in depth  (Read 16468 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« on: January 01, 2016, 11:23:27 AM »
This is an excellent series of videos which explains why and how most people fall for the gambler's fallacy. Of course I realize that the die-hard system addicts here won't accept it...

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1614 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2016, 11:54:33 AM »
Well duh!  A run of two is about twice as likely as a run of three.  A run of three is about twice as likely as a run of four.  However, at each spin, the odds remain the same, regardless of what has hit in the past

Yes, the Gamblers Fallacy as applied by system critics is a deceit.  Again you only focus on the underlined and ignore the practical effects of the italicized; IE  PRACTICAL EFFECTS THAT MANIFEST IN SPIN RESULTS LIKE A PHYSICAL LAW IN THE WORLD -- say like gravity or magnetism  if you will.

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2016, 12:54:25 PM »
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.

#### dobbelsteen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1591
• Thanked: 567 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2016, 01:26:32 PM »
Mikeall the experience players using systems or strategies know that every new spin is independent

Start a even chance sample.The first spin is black and the ratio R/B is 0/1. After large variations of R/B the ratio is after about 200 spins 1. Without a mind or a memory the roulette knows the R/B must converce to 1

Experience players do not fall in the mouse trap of gamblers fallacy

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2016, 01:40:08 PM »
Mikeall the experience players using systems or strategies know that every new spin is independent

dobblesteen,

Then why do they constantly seek for "triggers", like this (recently posted by Reyth):

Quote
Specifically I want a rating that will reliably indicate when the wheel wlll "draw back" and sleep the number for more than 88 spins. Of course this can occur without warning or "reason" which itself becomes statistically relevant but I am talking about "standard" & common wheel behavior.

All systems using triggers, hit and run etc are based on the gambler's fallacy. If experienced system players really understood independence they wouldn't keep making the same basic mistake, system after system, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 247 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2016, 03:03:14 PM »

And why do you care?
If they decide to be wrong, regardless of their intention, is their problem.
They are gambling with their money, not yours, thus they have the right to be wrong as long as they are using their own money.
Or perhaps you want us to believe that you care for our well being without being our spouse,family,friend...etc
I say this seems like a bunch of nonsense, why would someone who doesn't really know me want to save me and guide me to fortune when there is no profit for him/her??

#### palestis

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 842
• Thanked: 797 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2016, 03:14:19 PM »
All systems using triggers, hit and run etc are based on the gambler's fallacy. If experienced system players really understood independence they wouldn't keep making the same basic mistake, system after system, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.
Gambler's fallacy implies a tendency for balance, if something appears more or less often than normal.
However, this is not the assumption a good system player makes. A good system does not aim to cash in,  on the upcoming plethora of reds, if blacks happened to occur more often during a counting period. A good system aims for AT LEAST ONE FAVORABLE EVENT  within a predetermined range of bets, and then stops.
How does this action fall under the gambler's fallacy, when that fallacy clearly refers to  the wrong assumption that a balance is imminent? Aiming for at least one favorable event and stopping, under no circumstances falls under the umbrella of this fallacy. Because it has nothing to do with a balancing expectation.
A good system does not expect to hit, for example 8 blacks, if the reds appeared 8 more times than their statistical share in an observed period.  That's what this fallacy implies.
Hitting at least one black before the system stops, has nothing to do with the fallacy you describe.
Then the obvious question is this.
What is the difference between the betting of 3 spins on red AT ANY TIME, expecting at least one hit before stopping, as compared to betting 3 spins on red after 4 or 5 or 6 black have been observed?
Well, theoretically, there shouldn't be any difference between the two scenarios, but empirically there is a difference that we all observe time after time.
We see a ton of groups of 3 identical results observed at any time, as opposed to seeing 3 identical results after a series of the opposite results showed up first.
I am just curious how do you explain this phenomenon?

« Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 05:51:31 AM by palestis »

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1614 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2016, 03:49:28 PM »
Its not theoretical that after 4 blacks in a row the likelihood of red is greater than after 1 black in a row.  Its empirical that it is.  Their fallacy is ignoring that fact despite its objectivity.

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2016, 05:17:51 PM »

And why do you care?
If they decide to be wrong, regardless of their intention, is their problem.
They are gambling with their money, not yours, thus they have the right to be wrong as long as they are using their own money.
Or perhaps you want us to believe that you care for our well being without being our spouse,family,friend...etc
I say this seems like a bunch of nonsense, why would someone who doesn't really know me want to save me and guide me to fortune when there is no profit for him/her??

I care about the truth, that's all. Of course anyone can believe what they like, and do! but believing something or wanting it to be true doesn't make it so. And whether or not I care doesn't affect the truth, why bring it up at all?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 05:25:48 PM by Mike »

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2016, 05:22:38 PM »

I am just curious how do you explain this phenomenon?

Palestis,

It's not a phenomenon, it's an illusion or cognitive bias. You NOTICE when there are a lot of one color and pay more attention. It only SEEMS as though a color is more likely to hit after its opposite has hit more often than usual.

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2016, 05:26:50 PM »
Its not theoretical that after 4 blacks in a row the likelihood of red is greater than after 1 black in a row.  Its empirical that it is.  Their fallacy is ignoring that fact despite its objectivity.

Reyth,

Seriously? And how have you shown this objectively?

#### dobbelsteen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1591
• Thanked: 567 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2016, 08:44:47 PM »
This afternoon I visit my housecasino for starting the new year After one hour I run with a profit of 60 units.

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1614 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2016, 08:51:59 PM »
I keep showing you the proof.  You ignore it go away and then ask me "how have you proved it" this has happened over and over again.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2016, 06:38:35 AM »
Ryeth,

You don't have any proof that demonstrates any kind of statistical significance.

The gambler's fallacy is an infection of ignorance.  It's a nasty disease that leaves the mind trapped and quarantined.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 06:41:26 AM by Real »

#### palestis

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 842
• Thanked: 797 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy in depth
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2016, 06:44:10 AM »

I am just curious how do you explain this phenomenon?

Palestis,

It's not a phenomenon, it's an illusion or cognitive bias. You NOTICE when there are a lot of one color and pay more attention. It only SEEMS as though a color is more likely to hit after its opposite has hit more often than usual.
Illusion? What are you talking about?
I make a point to observe and write down those things. I don't just walk by a roulette table and glance briefly over it because it looks pretty.  I take those observations very seriously.
Again you confuse the situation. After observing 5 ,6 or whatever group of black, betting on red indefinitely (or until you run out of B/R), will sure lead to disaster sooner or later. You are right about that. But if you limit your bets to just 3 spins, how another 25 black in a row is going to affect me?
All I will lose is 3 spins. A far cry from the gambler's fallacy doctrine.
And If you insist that in consecutive sessions losing 3 spins each time (with no wins in between),  will eventually add up to losing the same as if betting perpetually in one session (or trigger), you are wrong. It doesn't happen. Not with a good B/R. If it does, show me a day's numbers that proves this can happen. You will not find it. Believing that probability can work against you for many repeated times is a fallacy in itself.
And to give you the benefit of the doubt, I went to a casino today looking  to enrich myself with the Physical method you are talking about.
Specifically I observed  3 roulettes for several hours looking to find a dominant pin.
Well, what I saw was that almost every pin had the same share of hits. No pin in particular seemed to be dominant. Certainly not one being hit 6 out 10 of times or 2 pins accounting for 80% of hits. A basic requirement for AP.
Or are you suggesting that I should crisscross America, or the world for that matter, to locate this type of roulette?
I am very open minded and willing to embrace any method that will result in winning (including your methods). But I am having hard time seeing it working in actual play.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 06:47:04 AM by palestis »