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

Last night into this morning I spent a long time reading and researching this topic.
(Of course over the past decades as well).
The Wikipedia page on it was a good read also - however....
I think the term is used many times when it doesn't apply.
If a player says "There's been 15 reds in a row so bet black" that is a good
example of the "fallacy".
However - a group of independent spins as a whole does not actually apply
in the same way.
I was also entertained to see that bias wheel "AP" players are also basing their
"skill" on the exact same "fallacy". The ones who bring it up the most putting down
betting methods and system players are sucked into the same fallacy.
----------------------
""Type one is the "classic" gambler's fallacy, when individuals believe that a certain outcome is "due" after a long streak of another outcome.""
""Type two gambler's fallacy, as defined by Gideon Keren and Charles Lewis, occurs when a gambler underestimates how many observations are needed to detect a favorable outcome (such as watching a roulette wheel for a length of time and then betting on the numbers that appear most often). Detecting a bias that will lead to a favorable outcome takes an impractically large amount of time and is very difficult, if not impossible, to do. The two types differ in that type one wrongly assumes that gambling conditions are fair and perfect, while type two assumes that the conditions are biased, and that this bias can be detected after a certain amount of time.""
-----------------------
Now - that's not to knock those players who find a defective wheel and attack it.. of course that's
going to produce a win for them, I'm talking about people who track spins for thousands of spins
and then wrongfully think they have a biased wheel when they don't.
Back at GG when I didn't believe that a HUGE number of RNG spins could produce a bias wheel
result, I was wrong. It can happen. So tracking spins for weeks or months might produce a
bias wheel result when there isn't one. Then they go after the wheel and still lose because of this
"type 2" fallacy.

On the side of the system player - betting that something is "due" can work.
Does that make me sound like an idiot who didn't pay attention to anything I just read ?
I can give examples how this is possible and how this "fallacy" might not be a "fallacy" at all.
Is it better than playing "hot" numbers ? Is playing "hot" numbers a "fallacy" too ?
and if so - how is it so profitable to do so ?
Lots of questions for people on the journey to find a winning method should consider.
The graph below is based on nothing but complete "Gambler's Fallacy" and real spins.



The sessions are marked with the red dots.
5 sessions, I could go on.
So is the "fallacy" truly a thing when it comes to system player ?
If so, how is it so simple for me to prove otherwise ?
Random has limits - there is no fallacy in believing that, we all know it to be fact.

 

And just to be fair - one session of RNG from Parx online. (as compared to actual spins in the post above)
Since they don't have a way to remove bets without re-betting each spot -
I kept it at 1 session - the results are the same as above

 

I should add that neither of the above used a "progression". The same amount was bet on a number from start to finish, there was no "increase after a win or loss" form of progression.

 

So you are attributing your selection as the reason for your success in the two charts?

 

This isn't what I've been doing - this was just a test I ran off based on using nothing but "fallacy" to win.
Part of the definition of this fallacy is that the player believes that their "skill" somehow influences the
outcome when each spin is independent and the game is random.
I'm saying that's not entirely true and can be proven.
To be fair, there was no skill involved either. I didn't select what numbers to play - "random" did that.
I didn't increase the bets or use a progression - "random" chose what numbers appeared and how.
I simply used this info and showed that it's entirely possible to win.
I'm not confident whatsoever that this so-called "fallacy" exists.
Now would I say that if 10 reds in a row show - to play black ? No..
But I would say that when events happen in random, they can be made predictable because
random has limits and this fallacy doesn't hold up against that.

 

It seems to come all down to seeing the game as 1 spin at a time...1 independent event that has no connection to the session of spins VS the game as a whole, the spins that make up a session.
The "fallacy" is believing that everything is supposed to balance out. More reds show ? Bet black, it has to catch up. This isn't true and black probably won't catch up. This is a good explanation of Gambler's Fallacy.
But this doesn't cover other ways to play, even though everyone groups "any" system or method as being
part of this fallacy.

If I took red and blacks, say 20 - and put them in a bag and set them aside.....
Now I agreed to pay you each time I spun 20 spins that didn't match those 20 in the bag, you would
take the bet and win many many more times that you lose. This isn't a fallacy.

I'll grab actuals and show this -
B B B B R B B R R B - hell, just use 10. I'll put them to the side and pay you every time the future
spins don't match this.. fair ?
B R (win)
R (win)
B B R (win)
R (win)
B B B R (win)
R (win)
R (win)
R (win)
B R (win)
B B B R (win)
and I could go on.

If you take the game as a 1 spin game, then no - you would stop with the B from the start and put
it in the bag - from that point on you'll win roughly 50/50 you'll lose 50/50 etc.
With 10 spins in the bag you will almost never lose. This isn't a fallacy.

Now to take that to inside numbers (as I did in the charts).... I'm putting 37 spins in that bag basically.
Imagine that. When people can think past a single spin and see the session as a whole made up
of single spins but used the combined results - it's a whole different game.
Is something "due" ? Of course it is. Unless random had no limits (which it does) then there is always
something "due". That leads me to think that this "fallacy" was simply manufactured - or it is meant to
imply that each spin is it's own "game" and no other spins (combined or not) can aid the player on the
next spin. Really ?

 

Turbo,

Have you ever tracked a wheel for thousands of spins?
Such players that regularly track usually track the chi square and standard deviations along the way. If the chi and standard deviations don't continue to grow as the sample grows, then the wheel often isn't worth tracking. There really is no mistaking a biased wheel for a random one. Even a fool should realize that a chi of 200 is statistically relevant and a chi of 40 is random dirt.

The reason it may seem as though there can be confusion is because you've never tracked a wheel for very many spins.

Someone like me can easily differentiate between a random wheel and a live wheel after a relevant number of spins. I can also tell the difference between an RNG and a real wheel.

For what it's worth, only writing numbers for thousands of spins is terribly inefficient. It's faster to find the biased wheel first, and then track it.
However, it's still better than the absurd systems posted on every roulette forum.

-Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

 

Random has no limits other than the sample size. Meaning you can't see 21 reds in a row if you've only tracked 20 spins.

A good example is to take a look at the last 20 spins on a reader board. Do you know what the probability was for those numbers to have hit in the exact order in which they hit? It's astounding. Imagine if you were waiting for those numbers to hit in the exact order in which they had just hit. You're mind would be turbo-blown.

-Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

 

Hey, I'm just quoting what the experts said. lol
I agree that if you first find a suspect wheel and then track it to verify the results - have at it, I'm sure
it will be profitable.
To anyone else though, just by tracking spins (yes, even thousands) - you can get a bias result and the wheel might not be bias at all.
And no..... you can't tell rng from actuals lol. I covered this already.
(not for a few hundred spins that any reasonable player will witness on a casino visit).

 

I agree ! Now imagine winning every time they didn't show in the exact same order......
I'm not imagining it, I'm doing it using hot numbers. Imagine that.

 

Turbo,

Perhaps you can post 50k spins of a live wheel, and 50k spins from an RNG so that I can point out the differences?

Oh wait, that's right...you've never seen that many spins from ONE wheel.
Would you like someone that's more experienced and that has the data to teach you how to tell the difference? After all, I have countless examples that I can provide. Do you?

 

Odd, because there is a limit to how + and how - the standard deviation of random numbers chart.
Over time that limit shrinks because you won't get the #3 appear 7 times in a row (lol).
For that moment it will certainly be well above what's expected but will then drop down as spins go on - and all number will be held within a "limit" or + and - STD. A number near the top can only stay or go down, a number near the bottom can only stay or go up. Any number appearing above expected produces profit - as the charts show and Gambler's Fallacy says means nothing at all.

 

No, I haven't. I've seen a few hundred at once tops - then I'm gone, profit in hand.
What system player needs to track that many spins ? none...
I can win the same amount (using a higher unit size) as a AP player who has to literally
do 1,000 times the work. Both people can win - and like I said before, we'll both be playing
the same numbers.
So what could the "good side" be of finding that bias wheel and spending all that time and resources
on it, then playing it with those risks involved - instead of just taking my system and playing it ?
Insane amounts of money ? lol. I can do the same but that's not what I do.
I never see the point of bashing one another when both ways work.

 

But you can't tell from say.... 3 or 4 cycles of spins correct ? Correct.
So there's no use in having that knowledge at all.
Something that wins against both (or either) won't require playing 50,000 spins at one sitting.
It will though require playing a few hundred spins at once perhaps and then those added together
as separate playing sessions. You could never look at the individual session and know if it's RNG
or actual spins. No one can do this, a computer can't even do this.

 

""Theoretically one number could appear five times in a row in five spins. You just rarely see it because there are more ways for it not to hit five times in a row. The std is limited to the sample size as well. You can't create a std higher than the sample size. Understand?""

So things balance over time...... grins..... Gambler's Fallacy ! Burn him at the stake !!

 

Yes, I realized that much. It's obvious.

Sorry, but that's simply not true.

1. You're more than likely playing random goats and riding the double edge sword of variance.
2. The AP is not. His numbers have an advantage and for a reason. If you think you're numbers are likely going to be the same numbers that the AP is on then you're delusional.

You're merely playing for peanuts. Such a player could win millions.

No you can't, unless you're referring to that cartoon wheel on the free play. Try the apps on your smart phone. You can win on them as well.

 

Turbo,

You've never seen a significant number of spins from a live wheel compared to an RNG, so I'll post some examples in a while. I know you think that there's a regression to the mean, but in reality it's not what you think. Really what you need to study is the random walk...your future expectation going forward. Some where, along the way, you've developed a mixed up somewhat perverted understanding of basic probability.

 

No, I'm actually not. You're going to be playing hot numbers, hot wheel sections or whatever the defective in the wheel is making happen (we'll be playing the same number basically)

I don't want millions, I want to beat the game using nothing more than what the math and game presents me and I've done that. I don't need to study wheels or search the country for just the right wheel. I know this sounds frustrating to someone who does this. I know you win doing what you do, you can't accept that I can do the same without the defects on any wheel, or any RNG.

It's supposed to be obvious. I don't require that many recorded spins to win, much less the time involved and the nightmare scenario of finding that great defect and then the wheel is changed or moved or repaired or taken out of play and then that time and effort is wasted. Like I said, if anything in this game required tracking that many spins or searching casinos for the right wheel - then I wouldn't bother with roulette at all. It's not worth my time. Other do it and do it well and I've never bashed them (you) for how and why you do it.

 

All I've done over all this time is understand better what "random" really is. It's not the scary monster full of mystery and horror like has always been preached to system players - the same for the house "edge" which is a tiny speed bump to deal with and not the monster people make it out to be.
If you are confident no system works - step one might be to understand why all these casinos (online ones anyway) make it clear in their TOS that no professional players are allowed - no "systems" can be used. Anyone doing this can be banned - their account closed and they will refuse to pay winnings. They are covering there asses because they know full well that this game can be beaten and they can be taken to the cleaners. So they made their own loophole. Winning too much ? System player. Banned.
No reason to do that if it's all luck and the house edge is there on every spin - and "no one" can win.

If the Parx site was a online casino - I started with dirt and now have 2 million +.
I would never get paid, trust me. I'm wondering how long G. Nugget puts up with my winning before they ban my account. A week ? A month ? Will that make it legit ? lol.
No - they are not going to pay out my winnings either. I'm prepared for that.