 | Bovada is the only Internet casino endorsed by the Wizard. Here are my reasons why and my promise of support. |
Home » Forums » Off-Topic » General Discussion » Roulette Results - How many spins do casinos use to determine the unbiasness of a roulette wheel?
Roulette Results - How many spins do casinos use to determine the unbiasness of a roulette wheel?
| January 2nd, 2012 at 9:21:34 PM permalink | |
| mrjjj Member since: Sep 4, 2010 Threads: 62 Posts: 1304 | Alot of this thread is in regards to gamblers fallacy. When most people cant win at roulette, they love to whip this term out. It does NOT cover every example of method betting, unlike how 'they' want people to believe. Example: Lets say all the roulette numbers were in a hat and I blindly picked one out. Its the #20. I bet $5 on the #20 for one spin.....never bet again and I go home. Is someone going to tell me I just used gamblers fallacy? Odd thing is......some will say YES, some will say NO and some will WAIT to see the general consensus answer and then chime in. (lol) Ken If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
Playing at the casino doesn't make you a pro any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. I prefer to be hated for telling the truth, than loved for telling a lie. No person has yet convinced me that their way of playing roulette is better than my way. Winners have simply formed the habit of doing things roulette AP players don't like to do. I'm sure AP (roulette) worked just fine back in 1923. Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing. 5.26%, so what?......I get taxed everyday. Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. Don't play/study roulette for a TOTAL of 9 hours in your lifetime and then preach that a person can not do 'well' with it.
Also, don't let the '2+2 will never equal 5' crowd bring you down. TRIAL & ERROR guys, I can't say it enough! When you're finished changing, you're finished. |
| January 2nd, 2012 at 10:24:16 PM permalink | |
| MathExtremist Member since: Aug 31, 2010 Threads: 46 Posts: 2518 | How do you "use" the Gambler's Fallacy? That's like "using" geocentricity or alchemy. How can you use a theory that's wrong? "In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563 |
| January 2nd, 2012 at 10:46:37 PM permalink | |
| mrjjj Member since: Sep 4, 2010 Threads: 62 Posts: 1304 |
Clever way of avoiding the REAL point. I'll tell you what, re-word it however you want to, the question/example stays the SAME. Ken If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
Playing at the casino doesn't make you a pro any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. I prefer to be hated for telling the truth, than loved for telling a lie. No person has yet convinced me that their way of playing roulette is better than my way. Winners have simply formed the habit of doing things roulette AP players don't like to do. I'm sure AP (roulette) worked just fine back in 1923. Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing. 5.26%, so what?......I get taxed everyday. Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. Don't play/study roulette for a TOTAL of 9 hours in your lifetime and then preach that a person can not do 'well' with it.
Also, don't let the '2+2 will never equal 5' crowd bring you down. TRIAL & ERROR guys, I can't say it enough! When you're finished changing, you're finished. |
| January 2nd, 2012 at 10:51:53 PM permalink | |
| mrjjj Member since: Sep 4, 2010 Threads: 62 Posts: 1304 |
I just noticed this >> I said: "Is someone going to tell me I just used gamblers fallacy?" So why throw the word 'the' into it?.... "The gamblers's fallacy". I never said that. (not that it matters anyways) Ken If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
Playing at the casino doesn't make you a pro any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. I prefer to be hated for telling the truth, than loved for telling a lie. No person has yet convinced me that their way of playing roulette is better than my way. Winners have simply formed the habit of doing things roulette AP players don't like to do. I'm sure AP (roulette) worked just fine back in 1923. Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing. 5.26%, so what?......I get taxed everyday. Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. Don't play/study roulette for a TOTAL of 9 hours in your lifetime and then preach that a person can not do 'well' with it.
Also, don't let the '2+2 will never equal 5' crowd bring you down. TRIAL & ERROR guys, I can't say it enough! When you're finished changing, you're finished. |
| January 3rd, 2012 at 2:04:31 AM permalink | |
| FleaStiff Member since: Oct 19, 2009 Threads: 75 Posts: 4820 | No. If, however, you think on your way home "I'm coming back next weekend to repeat the experience" then THAT is gambler's fallacy. Attributing your success to your skill instead of sheer chance involves the implication that you have some control over the validity of the next selection from the hat. |
| January 5th, 2012 at 7:34:45 AM permalink | |
| mrjjj Member since: Sep 4, 2010 Threads: 62 Posts: 1304 |
Hmmm, where is the line drawn based on your post? So if I did it only one more time (and never again), the second attempt is gamblers fallacy but not the first? Ken If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
Playing at the casino doesn't make you a pro any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. I prefer to be hated for telling the truth, than loved for telling a lie. No person has yet convinced me that their way of playing roulette is better than my way. Winners have simply formed the habit of doing things roulette AP players don't like to do. I'm sure AP (roulette) worked just fine back in 1923. Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing. 5.26%, so what?......I get taxed everyday. Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. Don't play/study roulette for a TOTAL of 9 hours in your lifetime and then preach that a person can not do 'well' with it.
Also, don't let the '2+2 will never equal 5' crowd bring you down. TRIAL & ERROR guys, I can't say it enough! When you're finished changing, you're finished. |
| January 5th, 2012 at 7:48:03 AM permalink | |
| duckmankilla Member since: Nov 25, 2011 Threads: 9 Posts: 132 | I think we have differing interpretations of what "Gambler's Fallacy" actually means here. In my experience, I have always taken the term "Gambler's Fallacy" to describe the idea that a negative EV game is beatable by some sort of "logical" betting system or as FleaStiff stated, attributing success to skill instead of chance. What jjj seems to be describing as gamblers fallacy is any bet at a - EV game, regardless of how the individual thinks the bet will be resolved, as exhibiting gamblers fallacy. If someone chooses to play roulette by placing money on a random number and then loses, this doesn't follow what I would consider to be gamblers fallacy. If that same individual decided to employ a martingale-esque system of betting where he reassured himself that he couldn't lose through his genius methods, I would consider that to be more of gamblers fallacy. |
| January 5th, 2012 at 7:52:18 AM permalink | |
| mrjjj Member since: Sep 4, 2010 Threads: 62 Posts: 1304 | My real point with all the 'what ifs' is the fact of SO MANY different versions of GF, its just silly. Ken If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
Playing at the casino doesn't make you a pro any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. I prefer to be hated for telling the truth, than loved for telling a lie. No person has yet convinced me that their way of playing roulette is better than my way. Winners have simply formed the habit of doing things roulette AP players don't like to do. I'm sure AP (roulette) worked just fine back in 1923. Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing. 5.26%, so what?......I get taxed everyday. Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. Don't play/study roulette for a TOTAL of 9 hours in your lifetime and then preach that a person can not do 'well' with it.
Also, don't let the '2+2 will never equal 5' crowd bring you down. TRIAL & ERROR guys, I can't say it enough! When you're finished changing, you're finished. |
| January 5th, 2012 at 11:04:05 AM permalink | |
| jml24 Member since: Feb 28, 2011 Threads: 1 Posts: 65 | I agree that the concept of "using" gambler's fallacy makes no sense. The gambler's fallacy is simply the belief that past results affect future results on a fair gambling game. There is no way the term can be applied to a one time bet. In your example if you came back the next week and decided not to bet on 20 again because it came up last week, your belief that the 20 was now less likely is gambler's fallacy. There are no "what ifs". If you believe that past results affect future odds then you are falling victim to the gambler's fallacy. Now, the times when it might get confusing are when discussing a game that is not fair. For example, let's say you decided to bet on coin flips and the first three times it came up heads. That is not at all unusual so you would have no reason to think that heads or tails is more likely on the next flip. If it gets to 20 heads in a row you are probably looking at a rigged coin so it would be reasonable to expect it will be heads again (the reverse of tails being "due".) |
| January 5th, 2012 at 2:24:29 PM permalink | |
| EdgeLooker Member since: Jan 4, 2012 Threads: 2 Posts: 35 | It would be nice to know what the casino's "acceptable" standard deviation figure is for "hot" or "cold" numbers in trying to determine if a wheel is biased or not. My local casino replaced one of their wheels a couple months ago and this thread has me wondering why now. :) |
| Bovada is the only Internet casino endorsed by the Wizard. Here are my reasons why and my promise of support. |