hi folks,

let's say someone plays a session of roulette in which there is a strong tendency for blacks. instead of betting on blacks he bets on the 1st and the 2nd col. he assumes that if there is trend for black there should also be a trend for these 2 col.

is this assumption based on the believe that conditional probability sort of favors his bet selection?

oh, I know that this has been tried before and doesn't work  . I'm just trying to understand the idea and theory behind it.

cheers

hans

I just told mr. paypal to take action. 

cheers

hans

Victor chandler

airball 10 cent

hi bayes,

thanks for taking the time to read it. 

I think it's an interesting way to look at probability. and maybe gambler's fallacy is not always as absolute as it comes along.

in his HG-post razor states that he has identified situations in roulette that are more favourable than others. there might be some truth in his statement.

what I also think is remarkble is the fact that results sometimes seem random in some way but if you look at them differently they don't seem to be random at all.

cheers

hans

hi folks,

is anyone of you familiar with the writings and probability concept of george spencer-brown?

while googling my way through the www I found this old page which put me on spencer-brown's tracks.

http://www.bjmath.com/bin-cgi/bjmath.pl?noframes;read=4294


for a start you might like to read the attached pdf file.

cheers

hans