The Gambler's Fallacy

[Bayes]

Yeah I know it's been done to death, but it's kind of obligatory for any site on gambling/maths. Here's my effort:

link:://:.roulettician.com/articles/article3.html

[NextYear]

 

[TurboGenius]

Yeah I know it's been done to death, but it's kind of obligatory for any site on gambling/maths. Here's my effort:

link:://:.roulettician.com/articles/article3.html

Loved the "The Reverse Fallacy" section.
I could argue all day on that one lol (that it's no fallacy at all).

[Bayes]

Loved the "The Reverse Fallacy" section.

By that I assume you didn't love it. 

I welcome all comments and feedback. If you think I'm wrong please say so, and more to the point - why. I respect your opinion.

[TurboGenius]

By that I assume you didn't love it. 

I welcome all comments and feedback. If you think I'm wrong please say so, and more to the point - why. I respect your opinion.

No, it's the best section I think - but it's one of those things where the math says one thing is 'possible' but the gambler will never see it in their lifetime. Hard to explain.
I would argue - can 1 number repeat 38 times (American 00 wheel) or can 38 numbers appear in 38 spins individually ? (again, American 00 wheel).
The math says yes - so anything based on repeaters can then be called a "fallacy" - however.
We all know that these two events will never happen - they "could" happen, but if I can bet that they won't - trust me, I'll win every time lol.
Then there's the issues with individual spins vs a collection of spins/session played.
Also - "Hot numbers stay hot and cold numbers stay cold" (I've said this in the online game window a few times lol)
This is true, even though it is a fallacy by strict definition.
I tested and showed on the other forum (38 people go into a casino) that 13 players playing their own individual number can all profit flat betting only over 1,000 spins betting 100.00 per spin on their number.
(I jokingly call it Turbo Newton's First Law of Random)
But..... this is verified because of the above (a number won't repeat 38 times, and all numbers won't show in 38 spins)
and the 'hot' numbers tend to stay (in motion) hot - not all of them, no. I only need 1 number to
What separates the 13 people who ended the 1000 spins in profit vs the other 25 players who didn't ?
The 13 winners were all playing the numbers that were either hot the entire time, or became hot numbers.
(by hot I mean that they showed above expected)... combined - all 38 players together gave the house it's math edge of course.

So while the math (which I stand by) says that it's a fallacy approach - from a system/method point of view - it's a gold mine.

[Priyanka]

So while the math (which I stand by) says that it's a fallacy approach - from a system/method point of view - it's a gold mine

I liked that line particularly given a lot of conversations we had recently

[The General]

A bit a of a dance.

[Tamino]

General I would say Let`s stuff it and keep the party going. Nothing like a status quo.



Nathan Detroit

[Bayes]

What separates the 13 people who ended the 1000 spins in profit vs the other 25 players who didn't ?
The 13 winners were all playing the numbers that were either hot the entire time, or became hot numbers.
(by hot I mean that they showed above expected)... combined - all 38 players together gave the house it's math edge of course.

So while the math (which I stand by) says that it's a fallacy approach - from a system/method point of view - it's a gold mine.

Ok, but you haven't give a reason why hot numbers stay hot and cold numbers stay cold. Some "law of attraction" perhaps? That sounds suspiciously like the General's "magical ether".

And it seems to me that you're denying that the wheel is fair (in the sense of outcomes being independent), because you say the players who made a profit were the ones who bet on the numbers which hit above expectation. In that case there's a selection process - bet on those numbers which are hitting above expectation because they will stay 'hot'. So outcomes cannot be independent after all. Not saying you're wrong, and if you are denying that the wheel is fair you have at least avoided contradiction, even if you haven't proved your thesis.

But that's quite different from what the General would say (and I made that point in the article) - that it's reasonable to bet on the hot numbers because IF the wheel happens to biased, you will be betting on the biased numbers. I'm pretty sure the general would disagree that that strategy is a "system" - a process of selection which will more likely than not, lead to profits.

He's saying the selection of hot numbers may lead to reduction in the house edge on condition that the wheel is biased. That's much weaker than your system which says even if the wheel is completely unbiased you'll still win betting on the hot numbers.

[Bayes]

A bit a of a dance.

Were you referring to Turbo's reply or my article?

[The General]

Tamino,

You are wise.

[psimoes]

In that case there's a selection process - bet on those numbers which are hitting above expectation because they will stay 'hot'. So outcomes cannot be independent after all.

I see what you´re saying, and the following must have been brought out already, but if we picked 37 numbers from 37 fair wheels, from 37 casinos from 37 points in time wouldn´t there be the usual "hits" above expectation?

[Bayes]

Hi psimoes,

Yes, there would. But Turbo is saying more than just some (unidentified) numbers will hit above expectation. Although true, it would be no good for anyone who isn't "lucky". He's saying that if you deliberately choose the numbers which are hitting above expectation then you'll do better than those who bet randomly or on the cold numbers.

[TurboGenius]

e's saying that if you deliberately choose the numbers which are hitting above expectation then you'll do better than those who bet randomly or on the cold numbers.

Yep

[TurboGenius]

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.