Quote from: JohnLegend on January 24, 2013, 12:24:48 AM
My methods are the opposite of gamblers fallacy.

You have no idea do you?

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 24, 2013, 12:24:48 AM
The question is PRICELESS in my situation. My methods are the opposite of gamblers fallacy.

Nearly every method is based on that exact fallacy SOMETHING IS DUE. PATTERN BREAKER isn't. 7 ON 1 isn't. FIVE isn't. In fact they all work because they are saying you are not due. And if you want my stake youve got to do this RIGHT NOW.

When that finally sinks into enough minds. You will know how I Won.

Until then you carry on stuck on the same track of jaded indifference.

By now i do not think you will even read an answer. And i just don't have the energy.
Keep going champ!

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 23, 2013, 08:22:46 PM
Marigny what is GAMBLERS FALLACY?

First of all i don't get the CAPS. I also do not understand why you come up with that question, what's the connection?


wiki
"The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo Casino in 1913),[1][2] and also referred to as the fallacy of the maturity of chances, 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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 23, 2013, 01:51:54 PM
Marigny a limited martingale can be very smart MM indeed. A suicidal 10 step marty is foolish. And will be costly longterm.

A 7 unit marty can be and is very rewarding married to the right bet selection and H.A.R. This is what must be clear.

Martingales can't work if the BET SELECTION is weak. And H.A.R isn't employed. All three together can result in something special and consistently rewarding.

What makes you think that a bet selection is stronger than other? Hit Rate? Variance? As for what you call HAR, it doesn't make any difference, i consider it your personal permanence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

If JL continues to use bet triggers based on empirical observations it is no wonder that he uses a martingale progression and calls it a "smart MM".
I am more of a rationalist.
Cheers

Quote from: albalaha on January 20, 2013, 07:59:09 PM
Bally,
        Reverse Labouchere is the concept given by "Norman Leigh" and I uploaded his famous novel, "Thirteen against the bank" in rf.cc way back.

I was talking about this... sorry.

So can you please clarify what is the first march used. Even a played session will do i guess.
Cheers

No one should upload copyrighted material... 

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: albalaha on January 19, 2013, 08:33:46 AM
Those who are too much obsessed with probability or mathematics starts playing a sleeper EC after certain losses and end up one's bankroll with martingale.

Those who are too much obsessed with probability or mathematics WILL NEVER USE A MARTINGALE PROGRESSION!

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.

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.

Thing is that they are poorly tested before any claim should be made.

If there was no zero, the probability of getting one or more hits in three trials would be 87,5 %


We can devise a simple flat bet exercise.
Having a Series of 3 or more as trigger to bet on the opposite outcome, we stop on at +1, 0, -1 or -3
Seems a disavantage...
Below attached are sessions from Random.org  (1000 outcomes), one a day.
Surprised on how well it goes...


Example of LW registry:

Random.org 17/01
WLWLWWWLLWLWLWWWLWWLWWWLLWWLWWWWLLWWLWWLLWLLWLLWWLLL
WWWWWWWLLWLWWWLLWWWLLWLLWWLWLWWWLLL
LWLWLLWWLLWLWWWLWLWLWLWLLL
WWLWLWWWLWLLL
LLWLWLLL
LLWWLWLLL
LLL
WWWWWWLWWWWWWWLLL
LWWLWLWWLWWWLWWLWWWWWWWLWLWLWWLLWLLL
LWLLWLLWWWLLWWWLWWWLWLWWWWLLL
LLWLLLWWLLLWWLWWLLWLLL
WLLL
W
+16 UNITS

---

15.01 -10
16.01 +7
17.01 +16
18.01 +6
19.01 +18

You get as many singles as series.

As for the probability it stays the same no matter past spins. 1/2.
Even Chances have a Linear Expectation: the sum of the probabilities of each independent trial.
For two trials the expected success is 1/2 + 1/2 = 1
3 trials = 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 1.5
4 trials = 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 2
....
As you see it is linear and so why the amount of Singles = amount of Series
amount of series of two = 2x amount of series of 3 = 2x amount of series of 4 .....
...
So in 2 trials you may expect 1 Win, but at the fourth trial you may expect 2 Wins, the ratio stays the same, it is Linear. =)

---

The number n of trials for the expected number of Wins to be 1 is
n = 1/p
This is also the expected number of trials before we see the first Win.

---

Expect a Loss after a Win or Vice versa is a very common pitfall of Gambler's Fallacy.

Hope this helps.

---

One nice thing you can observe in a binary random distribution is that you can only detect 3 different states.


RR BB Series of Series
RR B R BB Series of Singles
BB R BB Isolated Single / Isolated Series (hovering state)


Cheers