Roulette I've seen a new absurd claim that the gambler's fallacy isn't.....

My last contribution to this thread that shouldn't exist is what I've kept saying.

The anti-system people will agree that on average numbers will appear 1 in 37 attempts.
I should hope they would agree - this is the truth and the math.

The same people will argue that if a number appears on spin 120, then 60 spins later, then 77 spins
later - that it isn't "due". Something being due is a fallacy they say.
So this number is appearing 1 in 85.6 spins average but it's silly to expect it to become hot
and appear multiple times below 37 spins ? That's where the 1 in 37 they all agree with comes
from, but they deem it nonsense to expect this to happen based on it's past performance.
How they can think they have it both ways is beyond me, it defies logic.
It defies common sense.
Sir Anyone is used to looking at bias wheel results, where numbers appear at a much better
average than 1 in 37 due to a malfunction in the wheel - this isn't "random" results and
I'm sure he agrees. On a random wheel with random outcomes this doesn't happen.
Numbers that are ahead of where they should be will show less, numbers that are behind
will show more. To deny this means there is no 1 in 37 expected value and the math
is somehow broken. Nonsense to run around in circles trying to argue both ways
are possible and that everyone will lose.

Gizmo's stats from the casinos shows this too - why does the casino make such a higher profit
percentage than what the math says they should ? It's ok that the casino makes
14-22% profit on a game that they have a 2.70% or 5.26% edge ?
But when a player wins at 22% when they are expected to lose !!!!
Threads like this appear and contain nonsense explaining why you can't win.
The house can win higher than it's edge but you CANNOT !
*and then post a meme telling us how stupid we are*
Waste of time.

 

There is math in any system. And you can expect a number that hasn't been there for a long time to have a higher probability of falling out. But in fact, its probability of falling out does not change depending on how many times it has fallen out before I think so, but I could be wrong.

 

It's simpler than all that, if you let it be. You can look and see a number being hot. You can look and see a number being cold. You don't need to know what the long term average is. That works for knowing where the medium ground is and nothing more.

 

The probability is fixed and doesn't change. If the decision making device is fair the probability will be what we expect based only on the math 1/37 for any pocket on the wheel. If it's biased then it may still be a fixed value, just not the exact probability we expect. If the bias is random then random mixed with random is still random. Entropy increases.

But probability does not mean frequency. It is not like a clock demanding the event 1 in 37 spins. Probability repesents a fraction or a ratio, and it says given enough trials, we will get closer and closer to the expected ratio of 1/37 with an ever increasing degree of confidence the more spins we perform. This is exactly what a binomial distribution function computes from the raw probability.

Where it gets interesting is that random variance implies the actual outcomes won't be a perfect 1/37 ratio for each number when the total number of trials is small and we can compute a bound on it. We can compute the worst case scenario. It's not voodoo or fallacy, it's fundamental probability theory.

The binomial distribution function cares not about past or future events on the next 3 spins, it says with X independent trials you can expect at least Y events with Z confidence.

Read that again it's got nothing to do with the order of outcomes, or what's already happened, the past, present or future is irrelevant, it's got everything to do with the number trials (spins) and the raw probability which always remains constant.

 

Have an open mind and forget that pseudo math gimmick in every sentence being written.

That word math is now a big joke among experienced players.


Spike once said never wise up a chump .

 

Enjoy your uneducated ignorant thread. Ciao.

 

Why only math ? Also science, enlightenment, physics, history, etc.

Peoples who so not like math and other science - very like claiming that the earth is flat and other similar things...

I was talked to one recently so he starts cursing, when he heards the word "math" and he also was that flat earth lover...
I asked him "OK, the earth is flat, but what about the moon? And me pointed to the hanging moon above our heads.
Is it also flat?

No, he replied. But you can see it's round, but you can't see the earth.

 

We expect sun rise at dawn but not bull sheet.


Thanks for your contribution in kind .

 

At a casino we are for the purpose of recreation and thats all and not to engage in other unrelated

thoughts.


Like [removed, pay to advertise] blue eyes sang " I did it my way" And that is good for me who is a winner and never lost a bankroll.

 

Info like that can make you create a WINNING system around it. Of course combined with more triggers to keep the waiting time a bit down.

 

Just like the wobbly wheel crue sit there to wait for enough past spins...

 

Surely this is skewed by players playing off small bankrolls and losing it all before their numbers hit rather than some additional house edge.

 

Exactly. Most people that gamble bring a fixed amount to lose. Once they do that they congratulate themselves for having fun, again. Beats the hell out of dumping a couple thousand on a trip to Disney World.

 

Or like a Canadian Stu Pitt venturing to a $ 100 min Bacc table with a $ 500 bankroll.( as he posted on Baccarat the best small business)

 

Yes that variance is a bitch but the only way we can win. Most lose to variance, being insufficiently funded vs their bet size and hit the end of their rope on a short run against them. The house edge is largely irrelevant for those players.

The other way the casino wins more is through high house edge carnival bets.

And yet another way is players that grind away, high turnover, often making low variance or hedged bets with low profitability which all contributes to corroding bankrolls.

 

As a stockholder in a casino I want a good profit from the casino. Simple as that .


YOU play WE win .

 

As I always say, WE need them , thank you baby Jesus. Cheers

 

"Triggers?" -Gambler's Fallacy. You can't make winning system using triggers.

 

Yha, the bj cards counting is based on a trigger, hey hey.

 

Unfortunately here in the US it's 1 in 38 most of the time, but the casino only pays out 35 to 1, so you're going to come up short each time you win.

The probability of winning doesn't change from one spin to the next based on what has or hasn't hit in the past. How could it? Is there some physical force or tape blocking some of the pockets??? The random walk moving forward is that you should expect a number to hit at about 1/38...since there's 38 pockets on the wheel. If you feel that the probability is changing and that numbers have become due, then feel free to look down and count the number of open pockets on the wheel in order to see if there's still 38 of them there.

"They" don't expect that at all. We merely expect the numbers to bob up and down, and as the spin samples increase the probabilities will approach their long term expectations. Numbers are never due to catch up, or cool down -Gambler's Fallacy. I'm sorry you're having such a difficult time comprehending it. Again, the logic behind it is very tough for some people to comprehend. The Wizardofodds.com would be a great place for you to learn some of the basics behind the probability as it pertains to the game.

Best of luck,

-Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone