Author Topic: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?  (Read 1169 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mr j

You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« on: February 27, 2018, 09:03:01 PM »
I brought this up at another board. Is relying on past spins gamblers fallacy? I guess it depends on who you ask. I need past spins, no big deal. Most people do.

If you feel you do NOT rely/need past spins in order to play your method....I'll ask you this.

Could you successfully play your system/method under these conditions >>

There are 100 tables/wheels all lined up in a row. All of the history boards are turned off. Place your bets on table one, spin. One spin per table, down to table 100. After that, back to table one again etc.

Could your system still kick a**? If not, that means you DO NEED past spins in order to play.

Ken

 
The following users thanked this post: kav

heatmap

Re: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2018, 09:58:52 PM »
Ken,

I recently posted on wizard of vegas, and they really did a number on my ego, because i do not understand this either.  They told me that no matter what i should be collecting past spins, not because of which ones were more likely to come up or which ones are hot and cold, but because wheel biases occur. Rarely these days with modern technology, but if you have the time and money to do it, say you covertly set up a camera to watch a wheel for years, then figure out if it is bias or not in any way by the density of the numbers mostly hit.

I find it a part of the gamblers fallacy as well which is why i dont try any more, as I have written my own application to track numbers and drop zone etc. and it didnt matter because once i understood the layout of the wheel and did what I call "cornering the ball" or creating a very small window of where the ball has an opportunity to "escape" or settle into an uncovered pocket, i realized that something was off. I normally could predict relative spots where the ball would fall, but when i tried most of the time the wheel "avoided" my clutches so to say. I covered 8 different "halves" of the wheel so to say and nothing ever worked.

 
The following users thanked this post: kav, mr j

MickyP

Re: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2018, 06:39:53 AM »
Interesting question Ken.
Gamblers fallacy is seen as an insult to anyone who puts thought into playing the game.
Here is a similar question. Is using expectation to determine bet selection gamblers fallacy?
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, mr j

Mike

Re: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2018, 07:43:51 AM »
Is using past spins always gambler's fallacy? No. You must use past spins to identify the probability distribution of the outcomes - how else could you do it?

There are many different distributions : http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda366.htm

Gambler's fallacy is about independence, which has nothing to do with the shape of the distribution. A wheel can be biased (have a non-uniform distribution) but it would still be gambler's fallacy to bet on the biased numbers if they haven't come up for a "long time", and it would still be the reverse gambler's fallacy to think that because they have repeated a lot in the last few spins, then they are more likely to repeat again in the NEXT few spins, so bias and independence are not mutually exclusive.
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, mr j, MickyP

Re: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2018, 12:52:23 PM »
using past spins will tell you how consistency the dealer is  ;)
and from that basis....you can predict your target.
 

MrPerfect.

Re: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2018, 01:57:08 PM »
I see it all as semantics problem.
  Past spins do include following:
 1. Timings ball took
2. Place ball beaten
3. How it was jumping
4. Characteristics of jumping.
    Using past spins like that can help player to find functional relationships between key points ( variables) and final result.. numbers. It is data that can be collected to model future conditions and results. It's a Base to take decisions.
      Now, if someone look just numbers and call them " past spins", then what is there to use? He will need huge amount of these just to make desision,  and then..  if some key variable change, what gonna happen?  Something not really nice for player..
    That's why AP is so difficult, if proper work wasn't done, how we can expect proper payment for it? It's unfair not only in roulette, right?
   Just common logic...
 So... using past spins is a GF or not, depending on is user himself is a gambler or not.
   Does it make any sence?
 

mr j

Re: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2018, 02:04:35 PM »
I see it as clear as day.....with my example above (the 100 tables), can you play your method under those conditions?

If no.....well, now we have a serious conversation. If yes, how?  :(

Ken
 

mr j

Re: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2018, 02:06:15 PM »
Interesting question Ken.
 Is using expectation to determine bet selection gamblers fallacy?

Can I get one example of such?

Ken
 

MickyP

Re: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2018, 02:12:06 PM »
Expecting a number to hit for a third time after it has hit twice in 10/12 spins; the basis of your hot repeater system.
 

mr j

Re: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2018, 02:21:00 PM »
Its all in the wording. "Expecting" is the same as, IT WILL hit but I do see your point. Is that gamblers fallacy?

Heck if I know. I think triggers are GF but again, its only my opinion. It does mean Ken is right. We could probably get 5 different definitions of GF. Another point, is using GF that terrible, even if you are winning?

Again, I dont know? I think MOST of us use past spins and some (NOT ALL) of us win, consistently. Should I stop playing because some poster halfway around the world, whom I'll never meet (lol), scolded me for GF?

Ken

 

MickyP

Re: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2018, 02:33:34 PM »
Maybe if I used an example of a different system untouched by your hand your answer may have been different...lol
I should have placed a bet on your answer as I was expecting the word play.
 :D
 
The following users thanked this post: mr j

MrPerfect.

Re: You need past spins? Gamblers Fallacy?
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2018, 05:25:58 PM »
Mr J. Type drunkvb on YouTube.  It's not 100 wheels, but it's same wheel with hand full of balls... l would say , l would have a very slight chance in conditions you describe, but l would have it.