### Author Topic: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?  (Read 28391 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« on: January 01, 2016, 11:30:38 AM »
Yes or No? Personally I think they do, but I'd be interested in hearing contrary views.

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2016, 11:55:33 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: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2016, 12:53:55 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.

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2016, 02:39:30 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.

It depends on the definition of the word fallacy.
From my point of view there is not only black and white, but mostly different shades of gray...
I strongly believe all are coming down to individual perception.
I prefer to perceive the particular matter more subjectively rather objectively.
Therefore I avoid intentionally to adopt dogmatic thesis.
I really agree with your last response Mike, but if we accept it as fact then the MIT team of blackjack players committed fallacious methods too.
If it's not already clear what I'm imposing,I will explain you in a very plain manner;
It is generally known and accepted among the majority of gamblers that the card counting technique is a valid method for gaining an advantage over the house if applied properly.
I agree so far because in card games there are a finite number of combinations, but we have to assume that the decks are not being constantly reshuffled and to be dealt till the bottom of the shoe.
Even if these conditions have been met card counting alone is not sufficient in order to guarantee what we would call a sure win method.

''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.''

Therefore even if we could determine with a mathematical precision quantities in the remaining undealt cards, we could not determine in which order/sequence are going to occur.
A practical example;
Let's say 52 cards remaining in the shoe (relevantly small amount) and my count determines 30 high value cards, could this be sufficient to guarantee a profit without knowing their sequence??
I think not, however this kind of fallacy like ''law of large numbers'' and ''regression towards the mean'' have won lot of money in long term by their users.
My point is that we shouldn't be absolutely certain for everything in my sceptical point of view.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 02:44:16 PM by BlueAngel »

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2016, 03:52:06 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.

Of course its more likely to get the opposite result after a series of 3.  YES.

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2016, 04:42:07 PM »

I really agree with your last response Mike, but if we accept it as fact then the MIT team of blackjack players committed fallacious methods too.

BlueAngel,

Blackjack is NOT a game of independent trials, but roulette is, so MIT team were not being fallacious (if they were, they would not have won).

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2016, 04:43:23 PM »
Of course its more likely to get the opposite result after a series of 3.  YES.

Why?

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2016, 04:50:35 PM »
Can anyone suggest a system or method of play (apart from AP) which does NOT commit the gambler's fallacy?

Enquiring minds want to know!

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2016, 05:08:17 PM »

I really agree with your last response Mike, but if we accept it as fact then the MIT team of blackjack players committed fallacious methods too.

BlueAngel,

Blackjack is NOT a game of independent trials, but roulette is, so MIT team were not being fallacious (if they were, they would not have won).

Therefore even if we could determine with a mathematical precision quantities in the remaining undealt cards, we could not determine in which order/sequence are going to occur.
A practical example;
Let's say 52 cards remaining in the shoe (relevantly small amount) and my count determines 30 high value cards, could this be sufficient to guarantee a profit without knowing their sequence??
The finite amount of cards do not justify efficiency of card counting.
In other words their results could be replicated by a syndicate of gamblers with huge bankroll at craps,baccarat,roulette and so on...
The cause of their success was not due to card counting solely,but mostly to organization and huge unified bankroll.
They applied with discipline and patience their well organized plan,that was the key for the success.
I consider blackjack the worst game after sluts because you have a number of issues to overcome,such as: automatic shuffling machines,6 decks to deal with,bets can only go to one side but results are going both ways (you cannot bet on dealer's cards), you have to play all losing hands for the game to proceed (not in every casino).
All those issues are overwhelming significantly card counting.
Besides card counting could be applied to baccarat which I consider slightly better than blackjack,so who and why is promoting blackjack in order to steer people towards that direction...?

#### palestis

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 842
• Thanked: 793 times
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2016, 05:27:06 PM »
Can anyone suggest a system or method of play (apart from AP) which does NOT commit the gambler's fallacy?

Enquiring minds want to know!
Mike if you stop thinking in terms of perpetual betting to catch up with a great imbalance that may exists at any given time, then you will understand that not every system falls under the gambler's fallacy doctrine. What separates a good system from an ordinary system is the fact that a good system should aim at AT LEAST ONE HIT and then it should stop. Mission accomplished.
Then worry about another similar bout later. Where do you see the gambler's fallacy being in effect under this way of thinking? Gambler's fallacy clearly states that it has to do with balancing imbalances. That's a far cry from the example I just gave you.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2016, 06:41:44 PM »

The gambler's fallacy isn't about believing that unusual or rare events can or can't occur, its about believing that past spins indicate future spins. It's a nasty disease which seems to infect all roulette systems. Unfortunately, the cure of rational thinking seems to be a long way off. -Mike.

The above quote  was written by Mike and it very effectively says it like it really is.  The gambler's fallacy is an infection of ignorance,  a nasty disease that leaves the mind trapped and quarantined.

Well done Mike.

@Blue Angel,

In roulette the same number of pockets remain on the wheel from one spin to the next, so each spin is an independent trial.  However, in BJ the number of cards are finite and their numbers dwindle as the cards are dealt.  This means that the odds change as the various cards are dealt.  You can not equate roulette and BJ.  Card counters are in no way falling prey to the gambler's fallacy.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 06:50:33 PM by Real »

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2016, 08:52:54 PM »
Of course its more likely to get the opposite result after a series of 3.  YES.

Why?

Because equal distribution applies to every spin just as much as "independent outcomes".

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2016, 09:14:25 PM »

@ Real
Then why don't you play bj instead of roulette??

I still believe that roulette it's a magical thing...many people after many years still looking at the same game as it was but each and everyone of them seeing from different angle different things!

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2016, 09:15:47 PM »
Ryeth,

I'm afraid you're infected.

Blue Angel,

Because I don't play the game.  I exploit the wheel via advantage play.  My edge is significantly higher than a card counters edge.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 09:40:54 PM by Real »

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Re: Do ALL system players commit the gambler's fallacy?
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2016, 10:05:06 AM »
Of course its more likely to get the opposite result after a series of 3.  YES.

Why?

Because equal distribution applies to every spin just as much as "independent outcomes".

This makes no sense. How can equal distribution apply to every spin? Equal distribution implies that after a NUMBER of spins the proportions of different bets will be equal. It doesn't mean that those proportions will manifest in the kind of short term gamblers are concerned with. Equal distribution means that the RATIO of outcomes tends to equalize, not the absolute numbers, and even the ratio only equalizes after many spins.