Regression toward the mean--another form of Gambler's Fallacy

[Turner]

Sam...so whats the upshot from your original question.....a question that kinda had to be asked for me. Im with you on the fact it seems unclear....unexplained, and unexampled (is that a word?)

Turner

[TwoCatSam]

Turner

What is "Gambler's Fallacy"?  To me, it is a false belief that something will or will not happen.  It might happen; it might not happen.

Regression to the mean might happen.  But before it happens, you can be broke.

So to me it is yet another fallacy.

That's just me.

I have not been up the mountain!

Sam

[Ralph]

Turner

What is "Gambler's Fallacy"?  To me, it is a false belief that something will or will not happen.  It might happen; it might not happen.

Regression to the mean might happen.  But before it happens, you can be broke.

So to me it is yet another fallacy.

That's just me.

I have not been up the mountain!

Sam

Sam!

When we play EC,and use any information from the past, regression towards the mean is a good guess, but still a guess.
If we for any reason use whatever, and we win it is easy to think it is the method. We know the ball can not care about the numbers.

It is like that one who start eating a banana just before the train he was travelling in entered a dark tunnel, and come to the conclusion."Never eat bananas during a train trip, you get blind for some minutes". We see some of this quite often.

[iggiv]

Sam, i am very surprised that after so many years of being into roulette u ask this question. There is a clear explanation, and i gave a link to it so many times, but i will do it again

link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler_fallacy

It is mistake to call anything u don't believe in a "gambler fallacy", like some people here used to do. There is a classical Gambler Fallacy, and it is NOT THE SAME as regression toward the mean.