Every roulette method is gamblers fallacy? Hmmm

I hate it when a person uses the same definition for two different situations. Due/gamblers fallacy are one such example. I use the word DUE as meaning COLD........waiting/betting on a cold number(s) to hit because they have not hit in a long time.

In the past, I would play those methods all the time. Some very good days and some VERY BAD days. Here is my question in terms of a HOT number(s) >>> Lets say I tracked the last 250 spins. We'll say the 22 has hit the most. I start a 110 step progression on the 22. Keep in mind, that 22 has been hitting the MOST in recent spins.

Would you say I'm betting on a number that I feel is DUE? Can DUE also mean a HOT number? I look at due (cold) as gamblers fallacy. I'm NOT saying the 22 is past DUE to hit, I'm saying the 22 is presently hitting a lot. I thought DUE meant, 'PAST' due, not the same as presently hot.

An anti-method person can not have it BOTH ways. If you say I'm NOT betting on something due (in this example), you also can NOT say I'm betting with gamblers fallacy, correct??

Ken

I wouldn't say 22 was "due." I use the meaning you do - a number is due if it hasn't come up in a while.

You are not betting with gamblers' fallacy by betting on a hot number - in fact, you are betting against it. (There should be a phrase for betting on hot numbers - "presumed bias" (i.e. the reason the number is hot is because of a problem with the wheel)?)

I always thought of it as being, something is due because it has not hit in a long time. Due as in OVER due. Also known as Cold.

Something that has been hitting a lot, is Hot.

One of the screens that are in the rotation on some Roulette history displays shows Hot and Cold.


To bet on EITHER the Hot OR Cold numbers, is to invoke the Gambler's Fallacy, since unless there is a bias, all numbers have equal chance of hitting.

Does that make sense?

[edit]
After posting the above, I looked it up.

According to our resident Wizard, Gambler's Fallacy only refers to betting on something because it is "Due":
https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/fallacy/

The Wizard's article on it makes for fun reading.

Regarding the Fallacy meaning "Due", Wikipedia agrees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

Quote: ThatDonGuy

I wouldn't say 22 was "due." I use the meaning you do - a number is due if it hasn't come up in a while.

You are not betting with gamblers' fallacy by betting on a hot number - in fact, you are betting against it. (There should be a phrase for betting on hot numbers - "presumed bias" (i.e. the reason the number is hot is because of a problem with the wheel)?)

I had a funny hunch that term (bias) would SNEAK into the conversation. Lets say the wheel was 99.999% perfect.

"You are not betting with gamblers' fallacy by betting on a hot number" >>> Lots of balls to say that (and I agree with you) but dont worry, its me they'll ATTACK, you'll be fine. Thank you for your view. So if you are correct and there is no bias (cough)............not every roulette method is based on gamblers fallacy. (Oh, oh, its flagging time....dont let the word out, there's an agenda to protect, lol)

Ken

Indeed. The classic gambler's fallacy is : "is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process, future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely." (quoted from wikipedia as it does a better job of stating it that I do).

But the reverse of the gambler's fallacy (betting a number that is "hot" rather than "due) has the same source : a belief that the events of the previous spins have an effect on future spins.

In the end, betting due is "the gambler's fallacy" and betting hot is "reverse gambler's fallacy", both are fallacies UNLESS there is some sort of link between spins. I know there are some folks out there who claim there is. I don't believe their claims, but if they are making money, all good for them.

If you bet with a progression in both cases I wouldn't be surprised by your results where a method shows initial good results and then tails off : most progressions will win a little a lot of the time and lose a lot occasionally. The loses should be (on average) bigger than the wins (on average). So normally you will have a few wins before a loss.

I realise you DON'T always bet with a progression (see the Hit 6 system you posted recently... I apologize if I got the name wrong).

To bet on EITHER the Hot OR Cold numbers, is to invoke the Gambler's Fallacy, since unless there is a bias, all numbers have equal chance of hitting.

Does that make sense? >>>>> For starters, I'm just taking opinions and we'll say the wheel is 99.999% perfect just so there is no arguing. So we agree (I think) that cold also means gamblers fallacy. I'll give a goofier example......the 14 has hit 5 times in the last 20 spins and I'll bet on that 14 for the next 10 spins only. I do NOT think the 14 is DUE but you say thats STILL gamblers fallacy? (Gamblers fallacy = Due)

Ken

Quote: thecesspit

...betting hot is "reverse gambler's fallacy".

Thanks. That helps clear it up.

"see the Hit 6 system you posted recently" >>> I cant see it. It was flagged, its gone. The anti-method 'crew' did not approve, I should of checked first to make sure it was okay.

Ken

Quote: mrjjj

To bet on EITHER the Hot OR Cold numbers, is to invoke the Gambler's Fallacy, since unless there is a bias, all numbers have equal chance of hitting.

Only one is the gambler's fallacy (which is a belief that the number of each event must correct itself back to an average). The other is the reverse of the gambler's fallacy (and is still a fallacy) which is that one event will keep happening because it has already happened recently.

So if we are being PRECISE, betting on a Cold Number -because it is cold- is the gambler's fallacy. It's worse than that if you ask me, as a lot of the time people don't even understand how long it should be on -average- for a number not to turn up. That is to say even if 22 hadn't hit in 36 spins, it's not yet an unusual event. Some folks (and I am not saying these folks include mrjjj) would start betting 22 as being due. Even if the fallacy was correct (it's not, it's a fallacy, duh) we aren't yet into a unusual event area yet.

Quote:

Does that make sense? >>>>> For starters, I'm just taking opinions and we'll say the wheel is 99.999% perfect just so there is no arguing. So we agree (I think) that cold also means gamblers fallacy. I'll give a goofier example......the 14 has hit 5 times in the last 20 spins and I'll bet on that 14 for the next 10 spins only. I do NOT think the 14 is DUE but you say thats STILL gamblers fallacy? (Gamblers fallacy = Due)

Ken

I say you are exhibiting the Reverse Gambler's Fallacy. This is still a fallacy, mind.

I am assuming that the wheel is unbiased (that is one spin's result has 0 correlation with the next). 99.999% is close enough in this discussion :)

Quote: mrjjj

I'll give a goofier example......the 14 has hit 5 times in the last 20 spins and I'll bet on that 14 for the next 10 spins only. I do NOT think the 14 is DUE but you say thats STILL gamblers fallacy? (Gamblers fallacy = Due)

You must have posted that before I edited my first post above.

This is HOT, not "due". Prior to editing, I would have said it's another Gambler's Fallacy.

But as you can now see by my last post above, thecesspit said it best by defining "hot" as "reverse gambler's fallacy".

Quote: mrjjj

"see the Hit 6 system you posted recently" >>> I cant see it. It was flagged, its gone. The anti-method 'crew' did not approve, I should of checked first to make sure it was okay.

Ken

Oh, shame on them. I don't mind any of your methods. They amuse me.

As that one had no progression, it wasn't even harmful, and could be amusing enough to play. Just like the "bet the last 5 numbers" someone else once posted.

thecesspit stated: "That is to say even if 22 hadn't hit in 36 spins, it's not yet an unusual event. Some folks (and I am not saying these folks include mrjjj) would start betting 22 as being due" >>> Years ago, yes that was me.

Also, you quoted me wrong, you have my name as a quote, no biggie.

Ken

Quote: mrjjj

thecesspit stated: "That is to say even if 22 hadn't hit in 36 spins, it's not yet an unusual event. Some folks (and I am not saying these folks include mrjjj) would start betting 22 as being due" >>> Years ago, yes that was me.

Also, you quoted me wrong, you have my name as a quote, no biggie.

Ken

I quoted your entire post. Nothing "wrong" with that at all. You wrote that entire post, I quoted it. Boom. Simple.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

You must have posted that before I edited my first post above.

This is HOT, not "due". Prior to editing, I would have said it's another Gambler's Fallacy.

But as you can now see by my last post above, thecesspit said it best by defining "hot" as "reverse gambler's fallacy".

Nothing edited, its a different post. Sooo, HOT is not DUE but its also gamblers fallacy, cool.

I have read many times in the past that due always meant cold (gamblers fallacy), I have NEVER seen a thing regarding HOT as gamblers fallacy. Thanks for your time.

Ken

Quote: thecesspit

I quoted your entire post. Nothing "wrong" with that at all. You wrote that entire post, I quoted it. Boom. Simple.

This is NOT from me >>

Quote: mrjjj
To bet on EITHER the Hot OR Cold numbers, is to invoke the Gambler's Fallacy, since unless there is a bias, all numbers have equal chance of hitting.

Quote: thecesspit

Oh, shame on them. I don't mind any of your methods. They amuse me.

As that one had no progression, it wasn't even harmful, and could be amusing enough to play. Just like the "bet the last 5 numbers" someone else once posted.

They amuse me as well. I'm quite amused all the way to the bank. (TRIAL & ERROR my friend, I love it)

Ken

Quote: mrjjj

thecesspit stated: "That is to say even if 22 hadn't hit in 36 spins, it's not yet an unusual event. Some folks (and I am not saying these folks include mrjjj) would start betting 22 as being due" >>> Years ago, yes that was me.

Also, you quoted me wrong, you have my name as a quote, no biggie.

Ken

You really shouldn't be criticizing someone for quoting you incorrectly when: A) They quoted EXACTLY what you had posted, and B) You don't use the quote tags properly.

Quote: mrjjj

This is NOT from me >>

Quote: mrjjj
To bet on EITHER the Hot OR Cold numbers, is to invoke the Gambler's Fallacy, since unless there is a bias, all numbers have equal chance of hitting.

Well, now I see it was DJ teddy bear said it, by hunting through previous posts. It was in your post with no attribution to anyone else, so I figured you had said it. You were quoting someone else, with no indication it was DJ. How am I supposed to know what you were talking about?

Quote: mrjjj

Nothing edited, its a different post. Sooo, HOT is not DUE but its also gamblers fallacy, cool.

Wrong, and I see DJ has changed his original position... which is cool.

HOT is not DUE. (as you say)

Betting HOT is not the gambler's fallacy. It is the Reverse Gambler's Fallacy.

Quote:

I have read many times in the past that due always meant cold (gamblers fallacy), I have NEVER seen a thing regarding HOT as gamblers fallacy. Thanks for your time.

Ken

Correct. Betting a "DUE" (or "COLD") number because it's "gotta come up again soon" IS the Gambler's Fallacy.

So you should be correcting anyone who says betting HOT is the gambler's fallacy. But please correct them to tell them it's the Reverse Gambler's Fallacy.

If I were to employ a system in roulette (and I never would), I'd bet on numbers appearing more frequenty than not. It the wheel is biased, it can't be biased against cold numbers but only FOR hot numbers. It can't hurt. The probability that a wheel is biased is always >0. Therefore, the odds of a number appearing after it's hit is always <1/38, but probably minutely so.

I have yet to believe that there's a wheel out there that's biased such that the 5.26% can be beaten.

Quote: thecesspit

Well, now I see it was DJ teddy bear said it, by hunting through previous posts. It was in your post with no attribution to anyone else, so I figured you had said it. You were quoting someone else, with no indication it was DJ. How am I supposed to know what you were talking about?

Thats fine and I did say no biggie. Regardless of who said it, YOUR point of VIEW is what is important (all views actually).

Ken

Quote: DJTeddyBear

You really shouldn't be criticizing someone for quoting you incorrectly when: A) They quoted EXACTLY what you had posted, and B) You don't use the quote tags properly.

Can you show me the exact WORDS where I 'criticized' him? Thanks bro.

Ken

Quote: thecesspit

Wrong, and I see DJ has changed his original position... which is cool.

HOT is not DUE. (as you say)

Betting HOT is not the gambler's fallacy. It is the Reverse Gambler's Fallacy.



Correct. Betting a "DUE" (or "COLD") number because it's "gotta come up again soon" IS the Gambler's Fallacy.

So you should be correcting anyone who says betting HOT is the gambler's fallacy. But please correct them to tell them it's the Reverse Gambler's Fallacy.

Wrong? You said 'EDIT'. Post #1 and post #6 (from me) are two different posts/examples, I edited nothing. Am I moving too fast for you? (lol)

"Betting HOT is not the gambler's fallacy. It is the Reverse Gambler's Fallacy" >>> Lets pick this definition apart, shall we. (I'm not saying I'm correct BTW) Gamblers fallacy is a bad thing (use whatever term you want), correct? Does 'reverse' also mean 'opposite'? (be careful now!) If its the opposite of BAD....is it still gamblers fallacy? Definitions are fun, hey !!

Ken

Huh? I said "edit"? I think DJTeddyBear did.

I don't think you edited anything. I merely said that no-one should claim betting HOT is Gambler's Fallacy. I said DJteddyBear changed his position based on my and other's explanation. I think we might be moving too fast for you... :)

Quote: mrjjj

Quote: thecesspit

"Betting HOT is not the gambler's fallacy. It is the Reverse Gambler's Fallacy"

>>> Lets pick this definition apart, shall we. (I'm not saying I'm correct BTW) Gamblers fallacy is a bad thing (use whatever term you want), correct? Does 'reverse' also mean 'opposite'? (be careful now!)

Reverse in this case "means the other way". The Reverse Cowgirl is just different from the Cowgirl. Reverse gear is the opposite direction in a car. Reverse Slope is the doctrine that Wellington used to beat Napoleon. Reverse doesn't mean there is a different in the inherent 'good' or 'bad' of a thing.

Even so, the opposite of something 'bad' can also be 'bad'. The opposite of Starvation can be Gluttony. The opposite of too hot can be too cold.

Quote: mrjjj

If its the opposite of BAD....is it still gamblers fallacy? Definitions are fun, hey !!

No, it's Reverse Gamblers Fallacy, and is also BAD (TM). It is still born of the same core concept : a belief that future results are based on previous results, when results are independent of each other. And that core concept is incorrect. IF you believe the wheel is Unbiased, and IF you accept each spin has nothing to do with previous spins THEN betting HOT or DUE is a logical fallacy.

Quote: thecesspit

Huh? I said "edit"? I think DJTeddyBear did.

I don't think you edited anything. I merely said that no-one should claim betting HOT is Gambler's Fallacy. I said DJteddyBear changed his position based on my and other's explanation. I think we might be moving too fast for you... :)



Reverse in this case "means the other way". The Reverse Cowgirl is just different from the Cowgirl. Reverse gear is the opposite direction in a car. Reverse Slope is the doctrine that Wellington used to beat Napoleon. Reverse doesn't mean there is a different in the inherent 'good' or 'bad' of a thing.

Even so, the opposite of something 'bad' can also be 'bad'. The opposite of Starvation can be Gluttony. The opposite of too hot can be too cold.



No, it's Reverse Gamblers Fallacy, and is also BAD (TM). It is still born of the same core concept : a belief that future results are based on previous results, when results are independent of each other. And that core concept is incorrect. IF you believe the wheel is Unbiased, and IF you accept each spin has nothing to do with previous spins THEN betting HOT or DUE is a logical fallacy.

'The other way' (your words).....is that not the opposite?

Real simple.....Is gamblers fallacy bad? YES or NO?

Does or can 'reverse' also mean opposite? YES or NO?

How can the opposite of bad also mean bad?

Ken

People (in general) have to be VERY careful which words they use......make better choices with wording please.

Ken

Quote: mrjjj

How can the opposite of bad also mean bad?

Having sex with little girls is bad.
Boys are the opposite of girls.
Having sex with little boys is still bad.

If you want to play linguistic games, fine. I think I EXPLAINED my answer already. I gave a numerous examples to head of this VERY question, knowing you'd go there. But here we go.

Real simple.....Is gamblers fallacy bad? YES or NO? - Simple terms "Yes, the Gambler's Fallacy is Bad".

Does or can 'reverse' also mean opposite? YES or NO? - YES - Reverse CAN mean opposite. It normally means "opposite direction".

How can the opposite of bad also mean bad? - See examples given in my previous example.

You are making a logical fallacy by saying A has some property B, therefore Not A has the opposite property Not B, and cannot have property A.

The clue is we are stating a "Fallacy" is bad. Both examples are a Fallacy. Therefore if a Fallacy is bad, then A and B are Bad, whether they are the "Gamblers" Fallacy or the "Reverse Gamblers" Fallacy.

Look at it this way, you are saying ::

Too Hot is Bad.

Hot is the opposite of Cold.

Therefore Too Cold is Good


Don't work that way.

Quote: mrjjj

People (in general) have to be VERY careful which words they use......make better choices with wording please.

Ken

That's priceless, Ken... The terms "Gambler's Fallacy" and "Reverse Gambler's Fallacy" have been used for years.

You just don't have a clue, do you? You come back again and again with your childish questions and your inane comments.

Hey, cupcake, unless there is a bias to the wheel (and in this case the wheel is 99.999% true, correct?), anyone who makes wagers on any number, series of numbers, column, section, color, area or spot on the layout BASED UPON NUMBERS THAT HAVE COME UP IN THE PAST for any reason whatsoever, whether the past numbers in question have been hitting a lot, very seldom, are "hot" or "cold" (using anyone's definition of any kind) and that using the results of past spins will give them some sort of edge, advantage or positive expectation is making a fallacious assumption.

That is to say that what happened on a (99.999% true) roulette wheel has NO bearing on what will happen in the future.

That means that it matters no one iota how you interpret those past spins and what you choose to do in the present or future using that information, EVERY SINGLE SPIN IS INDEPENDENT OF EVERY OTHER SPIN OR GROUP OF SPINS.

Anything you post to the contrary is wrong. Any money anyone has made using a system, method or strategy at roulette using past results as their guide is only one of the few fortunate souls who has escaped the odds of the game for the time being. It is not because your method is any better than any other method. The house has a 5.26% edge on you every time you put your money down.

Do you get it?

Every time you say that one of your methods worked for a while and then didn't work so well, all you're doing is proving this point. The fact is it never was any better than randomly tossing your chips on the layout. I can tell you that I'm going to flip a coin 5 times and it will come up heads 5 times in a row. 31 times out of 32 I'll be wrong but 1 time out of 32 I'll be right. On that 32nd time do you think I was any better at flipping or selecting than on the other 31? No, and your method, while it may make money for a while is no better than random because just like any other method, eventually you will give the money back.

If you are still ahead at this point, good for you but please don't try to find a way to convince anyone here OR yourself that you have discovered a way to "beat" roulette for the short or the long term because anyone who has even the slightest notion of how the game works knows that you are wrong and are simply a deluded (although possibly very happy) individual.

That's gambler's fallacy.

If the wheel is not biased, then why should your hot number method/system work? Why is the system supposedly better than a cold number system?

Quote: Keyser

Why is the system supposedly better than a cold number system?

I think you missed the part where cold is bad, hot is the opposite of cold, therefore play hot numbers to get rich and giggle like a little schoolgirl all the way to the bank.

Since Mrjjj. insists that the wheel is in no way biased, then I suspect his system must rely on some kind of magic and fantasy.

Quote: Keyser

Since Mrjjj. insists that the wheel is in no way biased, then I suspect his system must rely on some kind of magic and fantasy.

He therefore says that previous spins do have an influence on the current spin. Otherwise, I am mystified, I can't think of any other starting point that would mean that X is HOT could be true. Not to say there isn't one.

IF this was true, then there is no gambler's fallacy (there is no logical error going from "previous spins influence future spins, therefore X is due/hot). In fact, if it IS true, at this point we can't say if X is DUE or Y is HOT is more likely to be a correct assumption.

I suspect Mr.jjj. has become trapped in a corner and has no way of explaining why his system should work.

1. He states the wheel is not biased.
2. He has stated in the past that dealer's can't sector shoot or hit numbers.

So what's left?

Quote: Keyser

Since Mrjjj. insists that the wheel is in no way biased, then I suspect his system must rely on some kind of magic and fantasy.

When can we expect to see PROOF that you do 'well' with AP (cough) in the long term? Same definition for EVERYONE please.

Ken

Over my many years of posting and my 9,000 threads (joking), I have noticed something funny. Keep in mind, its just my opinion. The method threads that get ATTACKED the most, JUST SO HAPPENS to NET me the most and the method threads that get very little responses, JUST SO HAPPENS, I dont do too well with. Hmmm, coincidence? Could be. Listen, you can pour chocolate all over dog s**t but guess what? Its still dog s**t.

Meaning, mock me as much as POSSIBLE but in the end......well.....you know the rest. (LMFAO)

Ken