Roulette The "fallacy" of "Gambler's Fallacy"

Turbo,

I have friends that have had their accounts frozen, but it's not because they were using a "system", but it was because they had an edge. There's a HUGE difference. You play for a handful of spins here and there, they don't.

 

For what its worth, Im interested to know what the actual difference is between the RNG and real spins. Why not go ahead and post some more on this here or a new thread. Anyone can generate the RNG spins and you may already have real spins from Spielbank or similar. When and how the difference manifests would be interesting.

 

TG,

Did you also read the section on the "reverse" fallacy in the Wiki?

But then there's the question of what is meant by "consistent".

Strictly speaking, the gambler's fallacy isn't a fallacy unless you explicitly make an argument which involves a contradiction (the contradiction is the "fallacy" part).

1. Red has come up 10 times in a row.
2. This is a fair wheel, so outcomes are equally likely and independent.
3 Therefore, black is more likely to come up next, or at least, there should be some blacks very soon.

The conclusion (3) contradicts premise (2), because if outcomes are independent there's no reason why black should be imminent. Gambler's, especially system players, tend not to understand independence, even though it's a simple concept. What you don't seem to realize is that by asserting that "random has limits" you are implicitly saying that outcomes are NOT independent, because all you have to do to increase the probability of a win is wait for some event near one of those "limits" and your probability of a win has increased. You can't fault the logic, but the premise that random has limits is false. You can point to things you "never see" at the roulette table as evidence of these limits, but it's an illusion. If you wait for some event near the apparent limit you haven't increased your chance of getting a win because the expected "gap" between hits never changes. If you wait for 10 reds in a row you will have to wait, on average, as long for a black as you do when betting black after 1, 2, or 20 reds in a row. Gambler's just ASSUME this must be wrong, but they never actually test the assumption.

One reason why gamblers fall prey to the fallacy might be because they confuse ratios with absolute numbers. Barring zero, the long run expected RATIO is 0.5 for red/black, but after many spins one or the other will likely be way ahead of the other in absolute numbers.

 

Fossel,

Speilbank isn't just one wheel. It's several different wheels that are periodically rotated in an out of positions.

However, I do have individual wheel data. Millions of spins. I even have several wheels in the hundreds of thousands of spins. I have hundreds of wheels in my data base.

 

I'd like to see Sir Anyone correctly distinguish between them too. I suspect he could do it, given enough spins, but the trouble with using spins from a public domain source like Spielbank is that it would be very easy for anyone with even a little programming skill to identify them. I'm not suggesting that Sir Anyone would cheat, but that the possibility exists would tend to cast doubt on the result.

 

Michaela,

Do you have the spins?

If not I will post some.

 

How many do you need (minimum)? I have about 200,000

Is it possible to upload files here? I could upload a file of say 20k spins either RNG or actuals. You tell me what they are.

 

Michaela,

What's the source of the live wheel data. Meaning, is it an online wheel, or is it out of a live casino?

 

Maybe give this one a fresh thread?

 

nah

 

I too would like to know how many spins one would need to determine live from an RNG(A NV approved RNG)

If someone can tell the difference then that would lead me to believe there is a way to exploit an RNG?

Evenbob also claims he can tell the difference, I find his claim BS.

 

In the very least - One person posts spins, the other person says if it's real or RNG. They have a 50/50 chance of being right.. lol. How does that prove anything ?
It's like Sir Anyone saying he knows the next spin Red or Black so someone posts 1,000 spins and then he says "Red".
No one can tell RNG from actuals - it's a myth.

 

This is quite comical. The fallacy is in expecting anything to be due. "Stick with the trend" because it's due is a fallacy. Bet the opposite of the streak because the opposite is due, that's a fallacy too. Seeing that a condition continues, and still continues even more, is not the same as expecting that something is do. It's just observing situational awareness. Observing the changes in a trend's duration and changes is not a process of "consistency." It's nothing more than taking into account the actual coincidence happening. The trends continue or they don't. They last for a short while, middle duration, or for a long while, sometimes they do this in swarms. Most of the times they don't do this in swarms. It is a mistake to believe that something is due because it must revert to its mean value of an average state. This thread is about tying hot numbers to an argument that the existence of hottest numbers inside of 4 or 5 cycles can have an expected result that tends to repeat itself. It's not the same thing to say hottest numbers are due because they must follow a mystical law of thirds contrivance.

You can get good at situational awareness without needing to depend of anything being due. If you have listened to me for any time over the past 11 years then you know that you can't depend just on the trend. You must place your bets according to the effectiveness of your bets in any session. The better your bet selection process becomes, be that luck or acquired skill, the better your total skill at swarms of effectiveness becomes. At no time does a magical belief by expectation, because something is due, come into the skill set. It's poison to lean on that crutch.

This thread is a misguided diversion into semantic subjectivity. It has devolved into a pissing contest of words like "yes I can," and "no you can't."

 

I can.

 

Obviously, you wouldn't do just one test. That's why I asked how many spins one would need.

I don't know why he thinks he can tell the difference unless he thinks a bias will show up on a live wheel?

 

Not to mention it can never be proven. lol
Yes I can - and then he does ! He has a 50/50 chance, there's only two options.
Hell, picking it right 5 times in a row isn't even proof that someone can tell the difference or not.

meanwhile - Things are "due".
Good thread I suppose - we can all argue and no one can prove a thing. At least I posted charts showing that I'm not full of BS. lol.

 

If I know the make and model of wheel, then I can tell a bit better than 50% of the time after just 1k spins.
After 5k spins I'm probably over 70%
After 20k spins I'm probably over 85%
After 50k I'm approaching 90% or higher.

Since nobody here has such data I'll post it...if I can find the correct file type extension. Every type of file I have is too large.

 

Not to mention the obvious - NO ONE has continuous spins from a live wheel over thousands of spins.
Unless you either hacked the electronics at the casino, or someone sat there and recorded spins continuously for weeks and weeks and weeks just on that one wheel.
That's why the article points to bias wheel players as being part of the "fallacy". You have no idea
whatsoever that your data is accurate - even if it's recorded by a device and you somehow have 10,000 spins straight from a wheel - it could have errors in the listing that you have NO WAY of knowing about.
The whole thing is nonsense. But carry on with your "fallacy".
lol - Damn it feels good to be on the other side once in a while.

 

Turbo,

I have experience with the wheels that most people simply don't have. Other than the obvious of say a chi square of 37 verses a chi square of say..300 or more, there are unique assembly/manufacturing flaws common to some wheel models that show up in the data. Sometimes very quickly.

 

You can't avoid errors - even a person visually recording spins will make mistakes.
Once you introduce the possibility of errors - you can't say which is which.
Wheel A) did XYZ and RNG A) did XYZ - pick one, it's 50/50.