If you look carefully you'll see the Fallacy is alive and well here, in some of the methods posted!!

The following quote comes from:  http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/

It should give us all pause for thought...


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 "gambler's fallacy."

Thousands of gamblers have devised betting systems that attempt to exploit the gambler's fallacy by betting the opposite way of recent outcomes.

For example, waiting for three reds in roulette and then betting on black.

Hucksters sell "guaranteed" get-rich-quick betting systems that are ultimately based on the gambler's fallacy. None of them work. If you don't believe me here is what some other sources say on the topic:

A common gamblers' fallacy called "the doctrine of the maturity of the chances" (or "Monte Carlo fallacy") falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be balanced in the short run by other possibilities. A number of "systems" have been invented by gamblers based largely on this fallacy; casino operators are happy to encourage the use of such systems and to exploit any gambler's neglect of the strict rules of probability and independent plays. — Encyclopedia Britannica (look under "gambling")

No betting system can convert a subfair game into a profitable enterprise... — Probability and Measure (second edition, page 94) by Patrick Billingsley


The number of 'guaranteed' betting systems, the proliferation of myths and fallacies concerning such systems, and the countless people believing, propagating, venerating, protecting, and swearing by such systems are legion. Betting systems constitute one of the oldest delusions of gambling history. Betting systems votaries are spiritually akin to the proponents of perpetual motion machines, butting their heads against the second law of thermodynamics. — The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic (page 53) by Richard A. Epstein

The key word here being "perpetual".

In practice, we aren't trying to make a method which beats infinity (i.e. a perpetual  never-ending stream of data).


a) We can't test a perpetual stream of number.
b) We are limited.


You can't make a perpetual motion machine. ...But you CAN make a "motion machine", which serves through the life of a car. In our case we are trying to end up our lifetime "profitable".


I think if someone in here would develop a betting system that beats every archived set of actuals available to mankind from the inception of roulette until today, he would rush to the casino to try.


A true, hardcore, infinity-beater wouldn't ever lay a single chip... because there would always be further/perpetual new spins to test/try.

The gambler's fallacy could be correct only if two events have a hydraulic or complementary relationship over time. There are few such relationships in nature. So, despite the many clever and humorous sayings which exemplify the idea, such as "no good deed goes unpunished," this belief is usually wrong and represents a kind of magical thinking.

MG

I have studied hydraulics.  Are you meaning like the kind used in a backhoe?  I can see no relationship to gambling.

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 20, 2013, 02:13:02 AM
MG

I have studied hydraulics.  Are you meaning like the kind used in a backhoe?  I can see no relationship to gambling.

Sam

EXACTLY. Like if any imbalance will create a pressure on the other side.

---

Clarification: Gambler's Fallacy Vs Return to the Mean.


What is the probability of getting 6 REDS in a row?


-Even after 5 REDS present it is 0.5: For each spin in the series of 6, the probability is the same (Independent Trials).
-For the complete series the probability is 0.16


Now suppose we get 6 REDS in a row, What we should expect in the next 6 spins?
- We should expect what we always should expect: 3 Reds and # Blacks. RTM helps you predict that you will have fewer than 5 or 6 REDS. that's all.
The prediction is always the mean, and that is the value the distribution tends for.
If you think regression requires fewer than 3 REDS to counter the 5/6 that occurred in the first 6 spins, you are falling prey to the gambler's fallacy again! Regression to the mean results in the number of REDS (or proportion) being less extreme or closer to the theoretical mean on the next six spins, but not necessarily less than the mean.
Regression only dilutes the impact of extreme outcomes, it does not counter them.

Gf is far more easy to use then admit using!

Maximum gamblers are moving around the fallacy and Hit and Run is also a kind of fallacy. A belief that by entering at random times, they are safer.
                If we see the stricter definition of fallacy, gambling is all about having fallacies of one kind or another.

Ralph

I played the GF yesterday and lost a little.  You are right.  It is tough to admit.  I saw eight reds in a row and bet black.  I got red!! And red again.  I quit.

Sam

Quote from: albalaha on January 20, 2013, 02:40:45 PM
Maximum gamblers are moving around the fallacy and Hit and Run is also a kind of fallacy. A belief that by entering at random times, they are safer.
                If we see the stricter definition of fallacy, gambling is all about having fallacies of one kind or another.

Al you can only believe in what is working. I played like nearly everyone else for 11 years and lost.

For the last 9 years I've played short bursts and won. And everyone says there's no difference. If there's no difference I should still be losing.

Of course just about everyone thinks im lying about this. that's why Im doing the ongoing challenge. One thing I believe is H.A.R can't work for all methods.

Its more effective the bigger the odds of the method at hand. With more mortal methods. It needs a partner called money management.

Knowing when to raise and lower stakes. Makes the world of difference. The bet selection has to be decent. But learning the power of money management is just as important if not more so.

And when I talk of moneymagement, im not talking about flat betting or martingales. Im talking about learning the common win loss streaks of your method.

And learning when to best respond to them, that's the human factor.

People talk of MECHANICAL SYSTEMS. The criteria for bet selections might be mechanical. But your money management shouldnt be rigid and mechanical. This is crucial on merhods with small odds.

The casual observers of this game want betting miracles handed to them on a plate.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 20, 2013, 03:01:05 PM
I played the GF yesterday and lost a little.  You are right.  It is tough to admit.  I saw eight reds in a row and bet black.  I got red!! And red again.  I quit.

It was only GF if you believed black was more likely to hit, GIVEN that 8 reds in row had happened. In reality, black was just as likely to hit as red was. GF does no harm unless you back up your belief with suicidal progressions.

QuoteBetting systems constitute one of the oldest delusions of gambling history

delusions, a strong word for real wheel players, they're delusional

As the quote is aimed at real wheel players, I tend to agree, real wheels have no limits whatsoever, I will only ever play RNG, built by humans, has no real option of not doing the same thing/s more than once as it has been programmed to do 'something' I've watched, like many of us have, the RNG marquee for the last 4 or 5 years and now play 'with' it, those following, I still have not lost a session.

Quotefalsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others

They are independent on a real wheel, the ball has no memory niether does the wheel and the human cannot spin/release the ball at the same time/speed or in direct line of the last number outs slot, each results is independent.

From JL

QuoteIt needs a partner called money management.

You keep using that term in your specific methods JL, I have wondered for a while now HOW you can call a suicidal marty progression on TWO dozens with 243 units a stake, smart MM

A single loss would set you back so many games or HAR sessions, it could be a month before you get back to where you were, you've reported losses on your other methods, what do you do AFTER a loss, I won't believe if you say you just take it on the chin and keep the same unit size, how much do you risk and for how long AFTER a loss.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 20, 2013, 03:01:05 PM
Ralph

I played the GF yesterday and lost a little.  You are right.  It is tough to admit.  I saw eight reds in a row and bet black.  I got red!! And red again.  I quit.

Sam

I sugest you wait for one black to show after that clump of reds, then attack once. If you loose wait for two blacks and attack again. If you are into progressions, try a mild one like D'Alembert.
Just my two cents to avoid Gambler's Fallacy.


@Superman
Don't even bother...

Quote from: Superman on January 20, 2013, 04:26:27 PM
I have wondered for a while now HOW you can call a suicidal marty progression on TWO dozens with 243 units a stake, smart MM

Me too!
John, explain yourself. 

Quote@Superman
Don't even bother...

?

Quote from: Superman on January 20, 2013, 04:26:27 PM

delusions, a strong word for real wheel players, they're delusional

As the quote is aimed at real wheel players, I tend to agree, real wheels have no limits whatsoever, I will only ever play RNG, built by humans, has no real option of not doing the same thing/s more than once as it has been programmed to do 'something' I've watched, like many of us have, the RNG marquee for the last 4 or 5 years and now play 'with' it, those following, I still have not lost a session.
 
They are independent on a real wheel, the ball has no memory niether does the wheel and the human cannot spin/release the ball at the same time/speed or in direct line of the last number outs slot, each results is independent.

From JL
You keep using that term in your specific methods JL, I have wondered for a while now HOW you can call a suicidal marty progression on TWO dozens with 243 units a stake, smart MM

A single loss would set you back so many games or HAR sessions, it could be a month before you get back to where you were, you've reported losses on your other methods, what do you do AFTER a loss, I won't believe if you say you just take it on the chin and keep the same unit size, how much do you risk and for how long AFTER a loss.

Superman it depends on the method. PATTERN BREAKER has a base risk of just 7 units. JUST 7 UNITS. For something that can win 40 or more times in a row.

I should have to say no more, and ill tell you something else. You will never put a method in front of me that does any better for such a small base risk.

Now I know PB seldom loses twice in a row. So when it loses. I treble stakes on the very next game. that's 3 sevenths of the loss recovered right there. Now I drop down and continue.

With other methods I would do the same. But for more games. When 7 ON 1 eventually shows me a loss. I will do the same for 20 games then drop back down.

I may even do away with the 5th step of the prog. And simply wait for that treble trigger. A high percentage of my games go to the second step of the prog
but not much further.

You must always keep in mind I can well afford the risks I take. I have at least a 100 times whatever I risk or I don't risk it. A powerful bankroll allows you to experiment more.

If I was a newbie with only say 500 units. Of course I wouldn't be risking 242 on a single game. Lets make that clear. I don't really like risking more than a 100 units on a game maximum most of the time.

But if I see great potential, Im willing to. You will never see me experience 2000 or more unit drawdowns, like some gamblers are prepared to face. To me that's complete madness. But it goes unchecked by many progression critics. Simply because its not a cut and dried risk.

But a potential risk loss that can be suffered during long drawn out sessions. You see-what many fail to take onboard, is it isn't how much you have at risk. But what you expect to win.

The guy flat betting, may have no idea WHEN he will win. He just does it thinking all the laws of probability will be kind to him enough to end up in front at some point.

He may think if he level bets for say 50 spins. Then takes it up to a higher level at level bets he isn't using a progression. He is, its just a staggered one.

there's alot of people who are quick to jump on any method that employs a martingale, who can't see this.

And many hold themselves back from ever leaving the starting blocks on the track to success. Because theyve bought into this notion that progressions are a bad thing all of the time.