Author Topic: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool  (Read 7647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MickyP

Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« on: December 10, 2017, 11:17:11 AM »
Gamblers fallacy in short is expecting something is due to restore the natural balace of distribution.
Here is a question that will have many different answers: When is gamblers fallacy most destructive and when is it least noticeable or effective?

In my opinion, and I could be wrong, system players are mostly affected by gamblers fallacy mostly due to their short games. AP are least affected as it is not a factor in their game approache. RNG players are affected but due to the very small wagers and very long games (number of spins) the effect is somewhat diluted. This is a presumption as I don't have facts to prove the statement.

It is common knowledge that live system players restricted by table limits and bankroll fall prey to expecting a win. Chasing a win because you believe it is due is the cause of much heartache. Gamblers fallacy is fueled by human nature. Arrogance and pride spur losses on.

Most systems have triggers, stop loss and so on as counter measures to avoid falling prey to gamblers fallacy but this is not enough to reduce losses. What can be incorporated in the game to use the fallacy as a positive tool?

I believe it is important to understand the makeup of gamblers fallacy and to explore ways to use it to our advantage as system players.

I know not expecting a win is a silly way of play unless you are playing to loose so let's cancel that one out. All players place wagers with the expectation of a win thus feeding the fallacy.

I'd like to know from the more experienced players what measures if any have you taken to avoid being suckered into the fallacy?

 
The following users thanked this post: kav

MrPerfect.

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2017, 01:25:35 PM »
MickyP, gamblers fallacy is just based on false expectations believe.  Like religion.
    Better focus on something useful... instead of waiting something to happen, predict it.
   Imagine how life is simplified when you target 9 numbers and predict them 50% of the time correctly.  Even if you can get it 30% of the time correctly, it's still money .
    When you achieve it, no need to wait , chaise... just stay there and predict. If you are greedy like me, put some math in the middle.
 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP

MickyP

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2017, 02:19:50 PM »
Well put MtPerfect.
What I understand from your answer is that AP is not affected by gamblers fallacy, depending on their accuracy of prediction of course.

9 numbers is a quarter of the wheel so one hit out of four still has you in profit (flat betting).

I understand that it's a futile exercise trying to understand the fallacy and perhaps use it in your favour when with an AP approach it's not a factor and therefore irrelevant.
Thanks again.
 

MrPerfect.

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2017, 02:38:40 PM »
 Advantage play in general, not affected. But some AP , yes.
   Skill level is different between players. Level of understanding and control of the game as well.
 AP is not easy. Mistakes are costly. If player chaise past conditions results and game changed, then it's not better then gambler fallacy...even worst,cos AP disrupt odds.
   When player is right, his results are higher then expectation, when he is wrong, it's worst then expectation. In game player has both, right and wrong prediction, his edge flutuate.
   That's why good AP focus to increase their understanding and control of variables governing the game.
   AP without understanding and control is gambler... many "AP wanna be" are not AP but gamblers instead. Look myrulet.com it's full of these.
   They same as any other gambler do have falacies... it's because their understanding of the game is limited and they have no apparatus to adjust to changing conditions.
 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP

Reyth

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2017, 04:14:28 PM »
I just want to point out here that the GF is not an objective proveable fact but a theory; statisticians know that it can't actually be proven.  Anytime that someone mentions the GF to you in the form of advice, you should know two things:

1) They are stating their opinion
2) They have some kind of agenda other than just being nice and kind

I will also say here something revolutionary -- this opposition is a GOOD thing!

The reason is because it reminds us of how difficult beating roulette is and it forces us to test our assumptions in order to prove our successes.

To boil it down and filter it for you so that it takes the edge off their attempts to completely mentally and emotionally own you:

Whatever you do in roulette, PROVE THAT IT ACTUALLY WORKS, because odds are, IT DOESN'T!

Apart from that, you are free to ignore the GF and just let these highly motivated staters-of-their-opinion roll just like water off a duck's back! ;)

oh I can feel all the intense appeals to authority coming oh boy I just can't wait!
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 04:28:01 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, MickyP

MickyP

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2017, 05:11:49 PM »
Wonderful post Reyth. I know that we are all constantly learning and in the process we sometimes ask awkward questions like this one. There are now two very strong opinions on the subject that will encourage others not to beaten down with gamblers fallacy. Never-the-less we should always have our wits about ourselves and not take anything for granted.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

palestis

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2017, 12:04:03 AM »
When the experts talk about GF, they probably have complete equilibrium in mind. Lots of black doesn't necessarily mean lots of reds are coming. In many spins like 500+ the black and red will be close to equilibrium.
In the short run where the player operates this doesn't always happen.  Because of the variance.
But what I expect to happen, is at least one favorable occurrence in a natural effort to close the gap.
If that doesn't happen in the short run, how are you going to get to an equilibrium after lots of spins?
The tendency to seek out equilibrium has to start somewhere. And it starts slowly in the short run.
GF only applies to the players who anticipate many favorable results to even out a short term anomaly.
It doesn't apply to players who aim for only one favorable result in a series of preplanned bets.
There are 2 forces acting on an independent event, if a collection of independent events always ends up in  equilibrium.
One is the probability assigned to that event.
The second force is the natural tendency to seek out regression towards the mean, if there is a large gap currently in effect.
That is y with the right trigger we expect a little bit more than the actual probability.

 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP

Reyth

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2017, 12:38:55 AM »
I don't agree that the end result is equilibrium because that is just as bad as saying we lose at 2.7% and we can't win because of the house edge.

The result of long-term trials is that there is ALWAYS an imbalance, simply because perfect equilibrium is always near impossible to maintain; the concept of equilibrium is contained within infinity and is basically a myth or at least something that lasts for such a terribly short period that it is irrelevant.

Granted, it is the FORCE of equilibrium that causes probability to function for us and thus I agree with your argument because you are using favorable probability in your betting methodology and so as far as I am concerned, its the same argument.

Maybe you mean a certain selection may balance out from time to time (as opposed to the whole board) in which case I just misunderstood your point (sorry). 
« Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 02:14:39 AM by Reyth »
 

Mike

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2017, 12:43:28 PM »
[WARNING : this post contains a link to a Wikipedia article; readers who are of nervous disposition may wish to avert their mouse]

I just want to point out here that the GF is not an objective proveable fact but a theory; statisticians know that it can't actually be proven.
oh I can feel all the intense appeals to authority coming oh boy I just can't wait!

Reyth,

This is an example of a category mistake. The GF isn't a "theory", which is a proposition or set of propositions which are either true or false, but an ARGUMENT (and an invalid one, which is why GF is a fallacy). Statisticians, or anyone else, can't prove that roulette outcomes are independent for any given wheel without empirical evidence (they could use the diehard tests, for example). If GF WAS a theory, then you would be correct, because outcomes may NOT be independent in any given case (I''ve already given an example of how dependence could arise in the other thread).

An argument is valid or invalid, not true-or-false. The argument implicity made by those who commit GF is something like this:

  • This wheel (or sequence of outcomes generated by it) is random (meaning that spins are neither biased nor dependent).
  • A lot of events of type X have just occurred.
  • THEREFORE, events of type NON-X will occur soon, so I'll start betting on the non-X's.
1 + 2 are the premises, 3 is the conclusion. The fallacy arises because the player doesn't understand independence very well, or forgets that "random" means that outcomes are unbiased AND independent. If outcomes are independent then the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The conclusion is inconsistent with premise 1, because if outcomes are truly random then the occurrence of a lot of events of type X would NOT affect the probability of future X's.

It's not the business of the argument to determine the TRUTH of premise 1. Indeed, the outcomes may NOT be random (in the sense of being both unbiased and independent), but that doesn't affect the logic, which can only tell you that IF the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. The above argument is invalid because the conclusion could be false even if the premises are true.
 
The following users thanked this post: MrPerfect.

Reyth

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2017, 01:23:32 PM »
I'm sorry but Real as already linked to a statistician who clearly stated that the GF cannot even be proven in regards to people who place wagers.
 
The following users thanked this post: MrPerfect.

Jesper

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2017, 01:30:29 PM »
It is not the fact we bet for example black after 10 red, we are trapped in a fallacy, not at all. It is only if we think we have an advantage doing it.    There is few players who not from time to time behave bet an opposite hoping a run will end. I do it sometimes, but know the probability is not changed.

We should also know, near all the time it doesn't matter, so using a fallacy is seldom anything which make it worse.
It is also sometimes hard to see if it is a fallacy or not, especially AP-play. Any player can try and develop a way for predicting, should he be lucky, and win for long time, he may think it is the skill, and it actually works, very similar to systemplayer.
 

MrPerfect.

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2017, 01:39:29 PM »
Thanks guys, lauthing in the morning makes me happy.
    The thing is... roulette is not statically stable rng. .. instead it's dinamically unstable nonrandom number generator. .
   Majority of tests for roulette do not take into the account it's dinamic nature. That's why it's so difficult to find proper tools for data analysis. ... "perfect wheel" model from wich arise fallacies like "basic probability" are good for comparison only.
   Yes we can measure std and ratios, but it's all statical coefficients.  To really see what's going on we need dinamically test our assumptions and limit factors that affect us negatively. ... for that there is no straight forward math apparatus and we are obligated to use aproximation math models.
   No statistition or math guy can be autority to speak about roulette. If you wanna consider someone's opinion,  speak with engineering folks. These are trained to not care about perfect math models and consider real world variables in their work.
    If engineering folks would care about theories, we wouldn't have even electricity.
   I'm not saying math or stats are bad... it's just tools and has to be used as tools where upliable. 
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

MrPerfect.

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2017, 01:45:22 PM »
Jesper, many times you have been offered possibility to show your understanding about AP.  Besides unmotivated criticism. .. l seen nothing up till now.
   Prediction is subject to consistency measurements.  If you predict, you see how far ball lands.... you can measure and verify by yourself accuracy of predictions and measurements. It's not about what someone think..  but what is going on there.
 

Mike

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2017, 01:49:40 PM »
I'm sorry but Real as already linked to a statistician who clearly stated that the GF cannot even be proven in regards to people who place wagers.

Reyth,

Please read my post again. I'm AGREEING with you that it cannot be proved "apriori" that roulette outcomes are independent. But the GF is not a statement saying that "all roulette outcomes are independent", which is a single statement that is either true or false.

The GF is an argument, and as such, there must be at least one premise, and a conclusion. Unless someone makes their premises explicit they cannot be said to be committing GF. 

Suppose you notice that the guy next to you is betting on red after 5 blacks. Are you entitled to accuse him of GF? NO. However, suppose you ask him WHY he is betting this way and he says "because a red is DUE". Can you now accuse him of GF? STILL NO. Now you ask him why red is due and he says "because roulette is random and there are just as many reds as blacks". Only then can you rightly say he is committing GF.

But suppose when you asked him why he was betting on red he says "I have collected many spins from this wheel and have discovered that after a run of 5 blacks, red nearly always comes up within a couple of spins". Would this be an example of GF? NO.

I hope it's clear now.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 01:55:58 PM by Mike »
 

Mike

Re: Gamblers Fallacy as a positive tool
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2017, 01:55:18 PM »
It is not the fact we bet for example black after 10 red, we are trapped in a fallacy, not at all. It is only if we think we have an advantage doing it.

Jesper,

No, that's not the case. Sometimes you might actually have a REAL advantage in betting that way. You are only trapped in the fallacy if there is an INCONSISTENCY in the way you justify (even to yourself) betting in that particular way. Otherwise, where is the fallacy?