gambler fallacy is a fallacy
Quote: ahiromuI apologize if I'm wrong here, but hasn't the Wizard already admitted that a martingale without a bankroll or betting limit can work?
No, because "work" in this context means change the EV, and the calculations for EV use finite math which is violated if you assume an infinite bankroll. But without going into all the details, there's a simpler way of demonstrating it:
If you have an infinite bankroll and you win $5, how much do you have afterwards? You still have an infinite bankroll, so your "win" was irrelevant.
The moral of the story is that if you have an infinite amount of money, there's no point in gambling with finite stakes. You can't win anything.
Do you think it is because they are in the middle of the layout?
Is it just because people prefer colors to words and numbers?
If I were blind, and I wanted to run the Martingale, would I favor the colors, the Even/Odd or 1-18/19-36 bets?
More importantly, if I were blind, whatever numbers I chose, would a tribal casino actually tell me if I won?
Okay, so we're going to conveniently ignore zeroes today, and I'm just going to flip a coin 25 times on this 22:39 EST on this 1/9/2013. Heads will represent Black, and Tails will represent Red.
R-R-R-B-R-B-R-B-R-B-B-R-B-B-R-B-B-R-R-B-R-B-R-R-B
We look at this string of results, and we notice that there is nothing too terribly remarkable about it, which is what I was hoping for. I suppose three Tails/Red in a row, especially right off the top, is somewhat worthy of note and then starting with the third flip of that run the next seven flips alternate. I don't think it's anything so extreme as to have anyone gasping with shock at the Roulette Table, though. In fact, I doubt many people would even notice.
I should have assigned Heads/Tails to 1-18/19-36, those bets really don't get enough love.
However, the result above IS remarkable, it's very remarkable, and the reason why is because it is:
(18/37) ^24 = 32,381,820:1 to happen exactly like that!
In fact, ANY specific string of 25 Even Money Results is exactly 32,381,820:1 to happen exactly like that.
But, we look at the string above, and we are not impressed. We are not amazed.
If the string read:
R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R
You would say, "There is no way you flipped 25 tails in a row with an honest coin, you liar!"
Well, why not? I flipped the above series of flips in exactly that order with an honest coin, so why not all Tails? The probability is no different.
However, if we had either series with no zeroes (on a single zero wheel), then the probability of having such a series, in relation to just the zeroes, is:
(36/37)^24 = 0.51810602276443
More Why's?
Why is the Martingaler so committed to sticking to a single result, though?
We've already determined that the Odds against 25 consecutive Blacks are, 32,381,820:1, but so are the Odds of the Martingaler simply guessing whatever he wants to guess will come 25 times and being wrong every time.
Why would someone be foolish for maintaining that 25 Reds will eventually be spun in a row?
Look at my series of coin flips, if I were to go to someone and say, "You know, eventually, I think a Roulette wheel somewhere in the world will have this exact series of 25 results." The individual to whom I make that statement would likely look at me as though I'm a clown, and say, "Um...yeah...probably, what does that have to do with anything?"
However, if someone says a Roulette wheel will eventually spin 25 Reds consecutively they are out of their minds and are obsessed with math over practice?
How's that?
This is what you have. You have 25 spins. The Roulette Wheel is going to do something, the balls are going to land somewhere. In this case, any 25 spins in which a zero is not somehow involved is just as likely as any other 25 spins in which a zero is not somehow involved.
How likely is that?
Pretty damn, over half the time.
Supposed 'Math Geeks'
I will tell you that there is something that 'Math Geeks,' people who run simulations and all other players have in common. It's a very simple understanding.
Shit happens.
R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R
Is shit happening.
R-R-R-B-R-B-R-B-R-B-B-R-B-B-R-B-B-R-R-B-R-B-R-R-B
And so is that.
So, you can bet all Black, "Knowing," that the string of Reds, "Must," be broken because it's so improbable, or you could make a copy of my string of results, and simply bet its opposite because my string is so improbable.
Anyway, if you have the bankroll to support the loss that should eventually come from betting the Martingale all the way to 25 losing spins, or at least, until you hit the actual table limit, give me a call. I volunteer to be your personal manager, and we'll find a nice place, I'll probably get 1k or so Slots Free Play just for bringing you in!
Quote: stoneynvThe Gamblers Fallacy is in fact a fallacy.....OK I've said it.....here come the math geeks.
Although this question is always seen as a math geek question, I really don't think it is fundamentally a mathematics question. As I understand the meaning of "Gambler's Fallacy" it is the mistaken impression that what happened in the past has some effect on the future. In most games, the balls and dice don't have any sort of memory. In blackjack, the previously played cards change the probability space, so the past plays can have an effect on the future.
The believers seem to be the math geeks, inventing all these algorithms which supposedly counteract the reality of independent plays.
Quote: MathExtremistThe moral of the story is that if you have an infinite amount of money, there's no point in gambling with finite stakes. You can't win anything.
Excellent!
Quote: Mission146I've always wondered why it is always the colors?
The answer is hinted at in the posters other thread, where he talks about history displays.
On history displays, the reds are on one side and blacks on the other.
I could never understand why this was done. After all, the display already uses color to distinguish them, so why not have the left/right thing apply to the odds & evens?
But I believe that's why the "even money" thing always focuses on color.
Quote: Mission146I will tell you that there is something that 'Math Geeks,' people who run simulations and all other players have in common. It's a very simple understanding.
Shit happens.
Althought I've used the phrase often on WoV, I never realized that "Shit happens" was a math geek truism.
I have never used that phrase to describe any aspect of the mathematics of table games.Quote: DJTeddyBearI never realized that "Shit happens" was a math geek truism.
Perhaps you are paraphrasing statements like: "games with high variance and a low player edge (assuming an AP is playing) require a larger bankroll for the same ROR as games with lower variance or higher player edge." But this does not apply to ordinary civilian players.
For the civilian player, the longer the player plays, the more money he loses. So there is no reason to say "Shit happens" -- the player is going to lose it all anyway in the long run.
When I said I use it often, I meant that I use it in response to newbie threads that start off with "What are the odds of (some unusual specific event)"
Hell, I'll bet that Charles* has used that phrase!
-----
* Charles is Charles R. Mousseau. His website, Future Sight Gaming includes the tagline:
is not a rhetorical question.
I use it too, like when I accidentally left my wedding ring in a bathroom in a museum in San Jose, Costa Rica.Quote: DJTeddyBearHell, I'll bet that Charles* has used that phrase!
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe answer is hinted at in the posters other thread, where he talks about history displays.
On history displays, the reds are on one side and blacks on the other.
I could never understand why this was done. After all, the display already uses color to distinguish them, so why not have the left/right thing apply to the odds & evens?
But I believe that's why the "even money" thing always focuses on color.
I agree with you, that makes sense. I also agree that they should have it apply to the Odds/Evens or 1-18/19-36.
But what are the chances that you will die within the hour? About the same as the chances an hour ago that you would have died this hour.Quote: stoneynvEach day we live we get closer to our deaths. Yes/No?
Quote: stoneynvThe Gamblers Fallacy is in fact a fallacy.....
Yes, of course. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "The Gambler's Fallacy"
If you mean it's wrong, then you should have said "The Gambler's Fallacy is fallacious," or "The Gambler's Fallacy is wrong." But saying "The Gambler's Falalcy si a Falalcy," is as true, and redundant, as saying "The casino at the Venetian is a casino."
A player walks up to a single 0 roulette wheel and places 1 bet on each of the 6 even money bets ( odd, even, high, low, red, and black). He keeps up the winning bets and doesn't replace the losing ones. What are the odds he will have at least one winning chip after the 25th spin?
1 in about 11,093,774 (1 in about 21,608,574 for double 0)
Interesting stuff.Quote: mipletMath geek reporting for duty. I'm going to answer a slightly different question.
A player walks up to a single 0 roulette wheel and places 1 bet on each of the 6 even money bets ( odd, even, high, low, red, and black). He keeps up the winning bets and doesn't replace the losing ones. What are the odds he will have at least one winning chip after the 25th spin?
1 in about 11,093,774 (1 in about 21,608,574 for double 0)
How about something a lot simpler:
When the last bet is lost, on average, how far up or down is he? Considering there is a maximum of being down $6 with no maximum of being ahead, I'm going to guess the average is -$1.25
How about a chart of 1000 trials?
(edited... I said 3 at first... forgot about those 0's)
Quote: NareedYes, of course. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "The Gambler's Fallacy"
If you mean it's wrong, then you should have said "The Gambler's Fallacy is fallacious," or "The Gambler's Fallacy is wrong." But saying "The Gambler's Falalcy si a Falalcy," is as true, and redundant, as saying "The casino at the Venetian is a casino."
O.K., I'm not trolling, I'm just fascinated by the idea that random events produce predictable outcomes. So maybe The Gambler's Fallacy is fallacious. Yes, I'm way over my head here but I'm trying to wrap my small mind around the idea of how randomness produces predictable sting of like outcomes (Banker or Player) as an example.
There is a higher probability that smaller sets of like numbers occur than larger sets of like numbers (Player/Banker), so there is a tendency for the next value to oppose the previous string of values.
Strings of like outcomes (Player/Banker) always end even though each turn of the cards is theoretically 50/50
I sat at the table after four reds and began betting red. I increased my bets after each spin using the Fibonacci so by the third spin I was in guaranteed profit.
I kept going until I hit 21 units(ten dollars a unit) and then held at that level (I assumed the streak would end any time and wanted to only lose the amount of my last bet.)
I couldn't believe how well I did while everyone else was groaning miserably. They couldn't believe how awful the table was for those people going against the streak. I made a lot of money that day.
Unfortunately I have never had a long streak like that again. I witnessed some that were 21 or 22 spins long but I came along at the tail end and trying to catch streaks in the long run I have probably given it all back - (okay not probably, I know I have)
But the memory of that day still both haunts and pleases me.
Quote: boymimboNo, each day we live we don't get closer to our deaths. We don't know when our deaths will be, but there are events in life where we make decisions that extend our lives longer. Therefore, each day we live, we have a change to prolong our lives and therefore, at the end of the day, we are further away from death. This can include things like:
- career decisions to take on less stressful jobs.
- the decision to quit smoking or start an exercise program.
- losing weight
- curing a disease (such as cancer)
There are plenty of things we can do to extend our lives and therefore be further away from death at the end of the day we've lived.
True, in part. But as each day passes, there is less variance. Today, we may be able to get close to death and do something to jump far away from it. Today, there is higher variance, meaning the expected, inevitable event is unlikely to occur, we are more likely to land in a deviated state. Eventually, variance will hit zero. There will be nothing we can do. So since part of the answer is not true, it is false. Everyday, we do get closer.
Quote: MathExtremistNo, because "work" in this context means change the EV, and the calculations for EV use finite math which is violated if you assume an infinite bankroll. But without going into all the details, there's a simpler way of demonstrating it:
If you have an infinite bankroll and you win $5, how much do you have afterwards? You still have an infinite bankroll, so your "win" was irrelevant.
The moral of the story is that if you have an infinite amount of money, there's no point in gambling with finite stakes. You can't win anything.
Superb job disproving this hypothesis. But what if the government wanted to use a trillion dollar bankroll to balance its budget through foreign roulette using martingale? How much should they bet with no table limits, and when should they quit?
Quote: stoneynvThe Gamblers Fallacy is in fact a fallacy.....OK I've said it.....here come the math geeks. I'm guessing that right now that there is not one single game of Roulette where and even money chance has repeated 25 plus in the entire world.
Yes, if it wasn't a fallacy it would be called the "Gambler's Verity" instead. The rest is a non-sequitur.
What makes it so appealing is that it seems to be in line with the Law of Averages. Take this string of random results from a previous post.
Quote:Okay, so we're going to conveniently ignore zeroes today, and I'm just going to flip a coin 25 times on this 22:39 EST on this 1/9/2013. Heads will represent Black, and Tails will represent Red.
R-R-R-B-R-B-R-B-R-B-B-R-B-B-R-B-B-R-R-B-R-B-R-R-B
R) 13 (13/25= 52%
B) 12 (12/25= 48%)
These results deviate significantly from the expected 50% for each. If you flipped 100 times, the results would come closer to the expected value. 1000 times, closer. 10000 times, closer still. since 'R' is leading, doesn't 'B' have to "catch up"? What about this hypothetical result:
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
'B' hits 25 times from the get-go. If you flipped a half million times, and the coin behaved itself properly:
R) 249975 (249975/500000= 49.995%)
B) 250025 (250025/500000= 50.005%)
Here, you have results that come very close to the expected values, but 'R' never "caught up". It doesn't have to and the Law of Averages still holds. In a half million flips, you'll see lots of runs of varying length. That, too, is appealing: seeking purpose where there is only process.
Quote:I apologize if I'm wrong here, but hasn't the Wizard already admitted that a martingale without a bankroll or betting limit can work? That's exactly what you're doing with the 25/35/45 spins or whatever, you can make it statistically impossible for you not to see 25/35/45 straight reds or blacks. The fact remains that there's still a chance, however remote, that you will see that many consecutive same colors - and it never relates in a positive note to how much money you're risking.
If you had the bankroll and cojones of Chrome Digizoid, you could. I personally saw 17 reds hit at the International (LV, NV) once. It was a $1.00 table. If you started a Martingale at 1.00, and bet: 2, 4, 8, 16, etc, you would have had played $131,072. The next bet would need to be: $262,144 to win $1.00. That's over a quarter million bucks to win one dollar. Yet, there isn't a casino in the world that'll let you do that. If there were, Martingale players would nickle and dime them into bankruptcy. They defend themselves from that by placing a ceiling on how much you can bet to ensure that any attempt at a Martingale will eventually blow up in your face, and cost you a bigger loss than anything you made up till that point.
Quote: stoneynvThe Gamblers Fallacy is in fact a fallacy.
Of course it is. All fallacies are labelled "fallacy" because they are fallacies.
It's like saying that Lou Gherig's disease is a disease, or that Down syndrome is a syndrome, or that Reltivity theory is a theory, or that the Wynn Casino is a casino.
I think what you meant to say is that Gambler's Fallacy is not in fact a fallacy.
I know it probably wouldn't work, but what if an online casino let you bet with bit coins or something like that. And you could bet for fractions of a penny up to hundreds of thousands of dollars at a super fast rate. lets say you could use a program to make the wagers for you in a martingale fashion? I don't know how random number generators work. But i would imagine they would have a hard time to program it properly. Could one then claim a streak must end since its a program and not a 100% random event? Exploitable?Quote: ImpmonYes, if it wasn't a fallacy it would be called the "Gambler's Verity" instead. The rest is a non-sequitur.
What makes it so appealing is that it seems to be in line with the Law of Averages. Take this string of random results from a previous post.
R) 13 (13/25= 52%
B) 12 (12/25= 48%)
These results deviate significantly from the expected 50% for each. If you flipped 100 times, the results would come closer to the expected value. 1000 times, closer. 10000 times, closer still. since 'R' is leading, doesn't 'B' have to "catch up"? What about this hypothetical result:
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
'B' hits 25 times from the get-go. If you flipped a half million times, and the coin behaved itself properly:
R) 249975 (249975/500000= 49.995%)
B) 250025 (250025/500000= 50.005%)
Here, you have results that come very close to the expected values, but 'R' never "caught up". It doesn't have to and the Law of Averages still holds. In a half million flips, you'll see lots of runs of varying length. That, too, is appealing: seeking purpose where there is only process.
If you had the bankroll and cojones of Chrome Digizoid, you could. I personally saw 17 reds hit at the International (LV, NV) once. It was a $1.00 table. If you started a Martingale at 1.00, and bet: 2, 4, 8, 16, etc, you would have had played $131,072. The next bet would need to be: $262,144 to win $1.00. That's over a quarter million bucks to win one dollar. Yet, there isn't a casino in the world that'll let you do that. If there were, Martingale players would nickle and dime them into bankruptcy. They defend themselves from that by placing a ceiling on how much you can bet to ensure that any attempt at a Martingale will eventually blow up in your face, and cost you a bigger loss than anything you made up till that point.
Quote: AxelWolfI know it probably wouldn't work, but what if an online casino let you bet with bit coins or something like that. And you could bet for fractions of a penny up to hundreds of thousands of dollars at a super fast rate. lets say you could use a program to make the wagers for you in a martingale fashion? I don't know how random number generators work. But i would imagine they would have a hard time to program it properly. Could one then claim a streak must end since its a program and not a 100% random event? Exploitable?
No.
First, it's absolutely possible for a program to give you perfectly uniformly distributed random numbers, so long as it has some sort of external input (ie, a source of entropy). These are cheaply available.
More importantly, just because something (like the output of a PRNG) is not technically random, does not make it exploitable. If you can't figure out the way in which it is not random, it doesn't help you -- it will still pass all your tests for randomness, including having the correct probabilities for streaks of certain lengths.
Quote: AxelWolfI know it probably wouldn't work, but what if an online casino let you bet with bit coins or something like that. And you could bet for fractions of a penny up to hundreds of thousands of dollars at a super fast rate. lets say you could use a program to make the wagers for you in a martingale fashion? I don't know how random number generators work. But i would imagine they would have a hard time to program it properly. Could one then claim a streak must end since its a program and not a 100% random event? Exploitable?
They wouldn't let you do that. There are on-line casinos that accept bitcoins, but I would never play that. You're gambling twice: the first time on the game itself, and the second time that your bitcoins will be worth what you paid for them. Bitcoins are horribly volatile, and a very risky "investment" indeed. I get e-mails touting Bitcoins all the time as the next "Ya gotta get in on this sure thing!" (Last year, it was binary options). It's like that old saying from the 1920s: "When the shoe shine boy and elevator operator are talking stocks, it's time to get out and stay out of the market". An on-line casino won't allow you to play that way for the same reason B&M casinos won't: they'd get destroyed. It would be a death of a thousand cuts if enough people were Martingaling and doing so with sufficient bankrolls.
"I don't know how random number generators work. But i would imagine they would have a hard time to program it properly. Could one then claim a streak must end since its a program and not a 100% random event? Exploitable?"
Not random number generators: pseudorandom number generators. Numbers produced by an algorithm can not be considered random numbers. That said, the actual results are a good deal more random than those produced by mechanical devices and actual decks of cards. Roulette wheels are not perfectly balanced, dice aren't actually completely square either. All that is required is that a Roulette wheel or dice not be so badly off-balance, or that a dealer not be sufficiently sloppy, that it queers the house edge.
As for exportability, if you knew what algorithm was in use, you could conceivably duplicate it and predict what numbers were going to come up. I don't know if it's actually been done, but that wouldn't surprise me if it had.
No disrespect, cuz this is a cool site with great discussions and info. That being said. The same guys that talk about gamblers fallacy, saying one outcome has zero effect on the next. That "the ZONE" doesn't exist. They will tell you in the next breath that you are %100 to go broke on a negative ev game (BACCARAT). Saying you will eventually hit zero and not win. That statement implies that a succession of events is likely to occur. I like to call this "mathematicians fallacy". You can't talk about gamblers fallacy and talk about mathematically going broke eventually and not have those 2 statements contradict each other. Definition from the wizard about gamblers fallacy.
"The biggest gambling myth is that an event that has not happened recently becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the gamblers fallacy. "
If we change one word, "The biggest mathematics myth is that an event that has not happened recently becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the mathmaticians fallacy. (Going broke)
Mathematicians fallacy - you will eventually go broke at a negative ev game. As one event has no relation to the other no matter what you calculate. I could win every hand of baccarat for the rest of my life. Unlikely , unless I make a deal with satan. As one outcome has no effect of the other negative EV means F A.
When you realize there is no spoon....
Apply quantum physics to baccarat and you beat math, as paper covers rock.
Quote: Lemieux66I'm not enough of a math guy to dispute this, but I CAN'T WAIT until they reply to this.
Lol. Yes, I expect a backlash. I tried to make my own thread about mathematicians fallacy but I'm a noob on here and couldn't figure it out. Is a thread the same as a blog? This is the first site like this I got hooked into.
But as far as my mathematicians fallacy, you can check it, all my "math" adds up ;)
Quote: GamblorApply quantum physics to baccarat and you beat math, as paper covers rock.
Here's an article discussing the popularity of the word "quantum" for non-scientific purposes:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo
Quote:Quantum woo is the justification of irrational beliefs by an obfuscatory reference to quantum physics.
That's about all I know, but I've got my popcorn ready for the microwave.
Quote: GamblorGamblers fallacy is bull---!
No disrespect, cuz this is a cool site with great discussions and info. That being said. The same guys that talk about gamblers fallacy, saying one outcome has zero effect on the next. That "the ZONE" doesn't exist. They will tell you in the next breath that you are %100 to go broke on a negative ev game (BACCARAT). Saying you will eventually hit zero and not win. That statement implies that a succession of events is likely to occur.
The fact that a succession of events is likely to occur doesn't mean that they are in any way related.
Also, what people say is that if you play for long enough, you will go broke with probability 1. What this means is that, if you try to keep playing forever, you will go broke at some point and not be able to play any more. But, you are not trying to play forever -- you will die at some point, and not be able to play any more. There is some probability that if you play for your whole life, you won't go broke. That probability depends on how much money you have when you start, how much you bet, and how soon you die. Having more money, betting smaller, and dying sooner make it less likely that you will go broke before you die.
Just because you don't understand basic math, that does not make it a good idea to just make up your own nonsensical explanations. You would be better off taking the time to try to understand it. It really isn't very difficult.
Quote: gpac1377Here's an article discussing the popularity of the word "quantum" for non-scientific purposes:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo
That's about all I know, but I've got my popcorn ready for the microwave.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if this guy can't understand simple mathematical concepts like expectation, and use them correctly, he has approximately 0.00000000000% probability of understanding the concepts of quantum physics and using those correctly. Although, I probably don't have enough significant digits there.
Quote: gpac1377Here's an article discussing the popularity of the word "quantum" for non-scientific purposes:
There's a long and undistinguished history to the misuse of the term. Like "quantum leap." In actual fact that's when an electron switches to a higher or lower orbit around an atom when it gains or loses energy. As atoms are very small, a leap between atomic orbits is even smaller. Yet see how the expression is used.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe fact that a succession of events is likely to occur doesn't mean that they are in any way related.
Also, what people say is that if you play for long enough, you will go broke with probability 1. What this means is that, if you try to keep playing forever, you will go broke at some point and not be able to play any more. But, you are not trying to play forever -- you will die at some point, and not be able to play any more. There is some probability that if you play for your whole life, you won't go broke. That probability depends on how much money you have when you start, how much you bet, and how soon you die. Having more money, betting smaller, and dying sooner make it less likely that you will go broke before you die.
You saying I will go broke with %100 certainty is mathematicians fallacy. "If I play long enough" suggests previous events. Since one event is not linked to another your theory is false. His thread is about gamblers fallacy, I started a new thread about mathematicians fallacy if you care to make any input there. I'm not sure how this site works, but I don't want to hijack and change topics.
Quote: GamblorI started a new thread about mathematicians fallacy if you care to make any input there. I'm not sure how this site works, but I don't want to hijack and change topics.
Here's the link to that thread: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/17446-mathematicians-fallacy-baccarat/
Quote: GamblorQuote: AxiomOfChoiceThe fact that a succession of events is likely to occur doesn't mean that they are in any way related.
Also, what people say is that if you play for long enough, you will go broke with probability 1. What this means is that, if you try to keep playing forever, you will go broke at some point and not be able to play any more. But, you are not trying to play forever -- you will die at some point, and not be able to play any more. There is some probability that if you play for your whole life, you won't go broke. That probability depends on how much money you have when you start, how much you bet, and how soon you die. Having more money, betting smaller, and dying sooner make it less likely that you will go broke before you die.
You saying I will go broke with %100 certainty is mathematicians fallacy. "If I play long enough" suggests previous events. Since one event is not linked to another your theory is false. His thread is about gamblers fallacy, I started a new thread about mathematicians fallacy if you care to make any input there. I'm not sure how this site works, but I don't want to hijack and change topics.
As I said, other people are better than me at math but it's mathematically insignificant the chance that you will not go broke playing -EV games. So, yes there is a chance, but you probably aren't the one in a billion.10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet.
Quote: GamblorYou saying I will go broke with %100 certainty is mathematicians fallacy. "If I play long enough" suggests previous events. Since one event is not linked to another your theory is false. His thread is about gamblers fallacy, I started a new thread about mathematicians fallacy if you care to make any input there. I'm not sure how this site works, but I don't want to hijack and change topics.
First, please learn how to quote things properly. Don't attribute the nonsense that you say to me.
Second, "if you play long enough" does not suggest any reliance on previous events. In fact, it is just the opposite -- the reason that you must be willing to play for an arbitrarily long time is because the future results aren't effected by the previous ones. If they were, then some finite amount of games would be sufficient to ensure that you go broke.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceFirst, please learn how to quote things properly. Don't attribute the nonsense that you say to me.
Second, "if you play long enough" does not suggest any reliance on previous events. In fact, it is just the opposite -- the reason that you must be willing to play for an arbitrarily long time is because the future results aren't effected by the previous ones. If they were, then some finite amount of games would be sufficient to ensure that you go broke.
Another perfect example of mathematicians fallacy. If I play long enough suggests time and future events. For you to be so arrogant to think you can predict the future with math... Then why don't you calculate some big wins with said math if it has the ability to predict the future. The quantum real world is a lot different than on paper. On a 50/50 game like baccarat, it's just as likely I will double my money as go broke. Especially if I put it all on one hand. And essentially, every hand is a new and first hand. So what you are saying is equivalent to you having a %0 chance to pick banker/player on one hand. There are so many other factors that contribute to making money and or going broke. Tilt is an example. Math cannot account for tilt, hot streaks, the zone, or anything. Math tells me what might happen. Math can Not predict the future, and those who think it can are stuck in the tight grip of MATHEMATICIANS FALLACY. Please respond on my thread if you please, that way someone might agree with me we can get in on the convo. Plus I'm a noob and it's hard to keep track of exactly where I'm posting and stuff. Also, don't get so worked up over mathematicians fallacy, it's common.
Quote: gpac1377Here's an article discussing the popularity of the word "quantum" for non-scientific purposes:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo
That's about all I know, but I've got my popcorn ready for the microwave.
Hahaha, that is classic. Quantum woo is the best. Very funny. But I'm not just wooing
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if this guy can't understand simple mathematical concepts like expectation, and use them correctly, he has approximately 0.00000000000% probability of understanding the concepts of quantum physics and using those correctly. Although, I probably don't have enough significant digits there.
You can make up all the math you want nerd. Baccarat is 50/50. You can go up or down. You are so in the grips of MATHEMATICIANS FALLACY. And I didn't want to start insults, but your posts are very insulting. But it doesn't mean much from someone who thinks a /50/50 chance has a real chance of nil.
We do. It's called insurance, the stock market, and damn near everything useful today.Quote: Gamblorto think you can predict the future with math... Then why don't you calculate some big wins with said math if it has the ability to predict the future.
Sadly, baccarat is not quite 50/50.Quote: GamblorOn a 50/50 game like baccarat
Math covers streaks quite well. As to the tilt and the zone, psychology is a good reference for those.Quote: GamblorMath cannot account for tilt, hot streaks, the zone, or anything.
Among virtually everything, Math predicts physics quite well.Quote: GamblorMath can Not predict the future, and those who think it can are stuck in the tight grip of MATHEMATICIANS FALLACY.
Quote: GamblorYou can make up all the math you want nerd. Baccarat is 50/50. You can go up or down.
Baccarat is not 50/50. Are you not familiar with the rules of the game?
Quote: GamblorPlus I'm a noob
Really? Wow, who would have believed it.
Just another lamb ready for the casinos to slaughter....
Quote: soxfanWell, Zeus knows I only need to win 16.666666666666666 percents of my placed bets to win well, and regular at the baccarats. So, I'l let others worry about the house edge and some undefined "long run", hey hey.
lol.
Ok, soxfan, come clean. Do you really play baccarat or are you just trolling?
The reason that I ask is that your posts appear to be written with a certain amount of intelligence that tends to be lacking from the regular negative progression dreamers. I have a lot of trouble believing that you could actually believe this nonsense.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceReally? Wow, who would have believed it.
Just another lamb ready for the casinos to slaughter....
If you didn't use propaganda techniques to deceive others and misquote me, I said I was a noob to this site/forums all together, not gambling.
