Roulette Gambler's fallacy is a fallacy --- And i'll prove it !!

"If you flip a fair coin, the odds of getting heads or tails on any given flip are always 50% (1 in 2), regardless of what happened before.

Even if you’ve flipped heads 20 times in a row, the probability of getting tails on the next flip is still 50%. This is because each coin flip is independent and not influenced by previous outcomes.

The sequence of 20 heads is rare (with odds of 1220\frac{1}{2^{20}}2201, or about 1 in a million), but once it happens, it doesn't affect the next flip. This is a common example of the gambler's fallacy, which is the mistaken belief that past events influence future independent events."



The above statement is actually not true, If it was 50/50 then we would see 30, 40, 50, 100 heads in a row and this never happens, the longer the streak the rarer it is, meaning there's a tails due the more heads there is ... Without a doubt.


As the longer they are the rarer they are this means 5 heads in a row have more chance going to tails rather than another 5 reds.


Looking at 1/1 bets on roulette as a 3 sided coin, flipping the coin and it going red, odd, low consistently for 10 spins would be 3x rarer !!



Try convince me otherwise

 

I agree. Thats why a 3 side coin if it is looked 1/1(by 5) then the opposite before last is a winner.
Do you agree?

 

Don t be shy "RouletteTools" .
I am 100% on your side.

 

What you are missing is that the odds improve with each decision in the streak.

For example, betting against a streak in four steps you have 93.75% chance of winning vs. 6.25% chance of losing.

50+25+12.5+6.25 vs. 6.25

But once you have lost the first bet, the odds of the streak have improved to 12.5%. You now have an 87.5% chance of winning against the streak vs. 12.5% chance of losing.

50+25+12.5 vs. 12.5

This continues. You lose two bets in a row.

50+25 vs. 25

You've lost three bets in a row.

50 vs 50

The odds of a streak are not static. They improve with each outcome.

 

I totally agree with you, Mr. Idiot.
But all that data helps you in part and in part it doesn't. You should focus more on something else, such as averages and their balances/imbalances to be able to exploit them, along with good money management.

 

i agree

 

Then we really need to talk my brother...

 

Please tell me how can we talk private. We have a lot of good things to talk about.

 

talk here, i honestly don't know what ur talking about lol, i just agreed because u called me shy lol

 

thxs, Mr. moron.

 

Ok I see.....

 

Thanks for sharing

 

Who shared what?

 

Boukit share your idea to see what you are talking about so we may improve it , on forum are shared very advanced ideas so dont be afraid you share something new ,as you are saying that is a no consisted winner!

 

The first time you flip a coin is a 50/50 chance of heads / tails right? Then the second time, the probability changes, third time it changes again and so on - right?

What you fail to realise is that you yourself do not factor into the equation. Coins have been flipped before you ever existed, and will continue to be flipped after you cease to exist.

So, in infinity the chance is only ever a 50% probability. Whether you witness the flips is irrelevant.

This should be more than enough proof. This should intuitively make sense.

The probability doesn't change unless there's something happening, like the coin is getting dented, one side is wearing away, etc...

A 3 sided dice has a 1 in 3 chance equally, at all times, infinitely. It always has and always will.

 

This is true.
But there are also some "SHORT TERM imbalances" that are happening that they can offer a slight advantage IF you know how to do it.

 

That doesn't make sense. How can the probability of a coin be 50% across infinity (which you just agreed to), while simultaneously having short term imbalances in the probability of an occurence?

There are no imbalances, it's as simple as you think it is. 50% for a coin. Streaks, patterns, and the likelihood of something occuring are irrelevant because the likelihood of something happening is only relevant as a conversation topic after it's happened. It has no utility beyond that, and does not affect the probability of something happening.

It's simple, don't overcomplicate it and try to figure out something that doesn't exist. All that exists is a coin at any given time has a 50/50 chance to land on either face. That's all it will ever have.

 

https://www.gamblingforums.com/thre...u-could-lower-the-2-7-to-1.28152/#post-177757

On the above link... its my answer to your question mr Chrono

 

I've been flipping a coin for 2 weeks constantly now and I've not yet seen 18 heads in a row, The longer my streak of heads the rarer it is, it keeps going to tails more often, so there is such thing as a due bet !!

2 weeks and hospital

 

It is relevant to the extent if the witnessing was financed with money.