an�thro�po�mor�phize (wondering how to pronounce, click here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphize
) "To attribute human characteristic, expectation, superstitions to innate pieces of plastic devoid of any intelligence, basically were none of the former exists".
Some may call it gamblers fallacy.
So what has this to do with gambling, actually a lot, you have to had been there to appreciate it.
Purely as an example, can equally apply to trending, prior Naturals, or anything that exists in your head at any given moment. Take a six deck Baccarat shoe, which will produce 4 x 12H grids and your betting for example "Equilibrium vs ImBalance", yet 3 or 4 of those grids end up in Equilibrium, resulting in losing bet after bet, while your expectation is increasing, yet is proving futile.
So you're left bewildered and stunned, then the realisation may
dawn on you, "THE CARDS NEITHER KNOW NOR DO THEY CARE"
, they have no awareness of Equilibrium v's ImBalanced, or what is expected or what they are suppose to conform to.
The same applies to a myriad of bet selections, some of which I use and have used myself, but do they make sense? These would include;"Birthday Paradox"
, is it more likely a group of 4 pairs are suppose to produce a repeat more often than 4 different pairs?"Symmetrical Patterns"
, do the cards know what mirrored pattern they hare producing?
"Streak lengths expectation", ('Anti-Streak' or Expected Streak Frequency)
I know the feeling well when these type of bet selections work, we feel good & smart, yet there is the flip side, those times when they don't conform. Then (impact is even more pronounced after a few successful sessions), we can be left confused and hugely disappointed. Literally make no sense (the cards don't know),
are they worth spending time on or even contemplate playing?
Certainly over the years I've dabbled with Equilibrium v's ImBal, I've played the best and worst of it, to the point that now, I wait for it to lose first (a 12H grid Balanced), before taking that bet option."Birthday Paradox"
is another prime example (travelled down that road)
, Scott was wrong to suggest it had a mathematical edge, it doesn't, it resolves to a 50% state, just like everything else.
If we strip away all these anthropomorphize
options, what do we have left? Certainly "pattern capturing" and/or "pattern avoidance", have their merits. Knowing that you will win, within a series of bets
against xyz and will only lose against abc 'in advance'. The so called standard bet selections offer alternative options, 'FLD, DBL, OLD, Zz, Dbl-Zz' etc, again we know in advance what we will win and lose against, no anthropomorphize ambiguity involved.
Should "player expectation", play a part in the betting strategies we decide to use? Can we improve our game, even if it's just a case of stop kidding ourselves, if we dispense with this way of thinking altogether. I watch players at the tables, who have no expectation, they simply bet & hope and try and ride things out when thing are swing the other way. Anthropomorphizing the results
Placing a human element on prior outcomes.
It means that EVERY Template / grid bet selection option, "symmetrical patterns" and a few other options are flawed AND without merit. Because you are placing emphasis on prior hands (this is due or shouldn't happen again), thinking that due to the unique way you are recording a shoe, it has significance.
When you spot something, well it might not have existed if you were recording the the shoe via a different column template \ grid size or even gazing at the score board. Basically you are humanising
the prior outcomes, given the cards have no awareness
what you are doing, or how you are recording a shoe, what you are looking for, or waiting upon, nor do they care. It is my opinion such methods are merely gamblers fallacy (I plead as guilty as the rest), sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.
Now compare "Anthropomorphizing"
the game to running any standard betting option, they could be a combination of DBL/OLD/FLD, betting against streak then jumping on them, or vice-a-versa. Betting one-side only, stopping after X amount of Liar's, there are many options.
All bet options are capable of winning and losing, it shouldn't be so hard to guess right a 50-50 proposition once in a while to re-enforce to deluded logic thinking. However and here is the important bit, some bet selections anthropomorphize the results and some don't
. Humanizing the results is without logic and is an exercise in futility.
My suggestion is to ask yourself, "am I anthropomorphizing
the game", if the answer is yes, then be weary, it is without foundation, based on deluded speculation and expectation, gamblers fallacy, seek to remove this element from your game and progress forward. Bet one side only, Pattern Capturing / Pattern Avoidence, Standard options, are prime examples of not Anthropomorphizing the game, nothing is due, nothing is based on prior hands, we simply bet, accept and manage what transpires.