The Gambler's Fallacy

[The General]

I typed up a long PM to you but then didn't send it lol (I do that often)
Let's just say - I think some aspects of the fallacy can easily be proven as factual and not fallacy.

A la cuenta de tres, vamos a enjambre, y atacarlo ( Turbo ). 

[TurboGenius]

A la cuenta de tres, vamos a enjambre, y atacarlo

Ha !
Nah, I know enough when to keep my mouth shut and when to open it

[RouletteGhost]

.

[Narich]

What you seek is seeking you.

[Turner]

What you seek is seeking you.

Well....the mods will be seeking you it you post with 2 names...Donnik777
In the same day too
Just post with Donnik please.

[Steve]

¡uno ... dos .... tres!

[Bayes]

Voy a estar listo y en espera.

[sniper]

esperando a qué

[Bayes]

I typed up a long PM to you but then didn't send it lol (I do that often)
Let's just say - I think some aspects of the fallacy can easily be proven as factual and not fallacy.

Pity, I would have liked to read it.

The point I was trying to make in my article (which most articles on the GF don't emphasize), is that the fallacy isn't really a matter of whether outcomes really are or are not random, but about consistency. If you challenge the premise that outcomes are random (fair) then you're not being inconsistent, which is something the General forgets (or doesn't realize). That's why, again and again, he accuses forum members of being "trapped in the box that is the gambler's fallacy".

But only in very few cases do people seem to be committing GF. What they're doing is challenging the premise of "random". Isn't that what Priyanka is trying to show in her thread - that there may be ways of looking at outcomes which may reveal that they are not quite so random as we think?

To then come along and say something along the lines of 1 + 1 = 2 is condescending. More to the point, it begs the question (assumes that the thing under investigation just cannot be even worth investigating). And therefore anyone pursuing it must be "illogical". 

[Steve]

El arroz es moho y rancio . Muchos platos de duchas nos saludo a todos

[Bayes]

Here's one rare honest account of the GF (you can't rely on a mathematician  ).

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=wgwfoQwq5P0

[Turner]

Steve....can I request a button that generates a response that says " great post Bayes"
Saves me keep typing it

[Steve]

By saying 1+1=2 it means if you don't change either odds or payout, you'll eventually lose money. Many people don't even understand the math

[Bayes]

By saying 1+1=2 it means if you don't change either odds or payout, you'll eventually lose money. Many people don't even understand the math

Steve, that's not the point. The AP player challenges the assumption of randomness. Why can't this be done in ways other than just focussing on the physics?

The General will repeat his mantras which amount to saying "it just can't".

[Steve]

Bayes i don't at all think it needs to be traditional physics.  I'm sure there are undiscovered ways to change the odds.