Gambler's fallacy, what do you think? - page 3.

Mist

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

:)

Quote from: seoincorporation on March 26, 2015, 01:19:18 PM

Each game is diferent, some games like casinos online (Who don't have a provably fair system) chose if you win or lost by the house winning, simple maths, if casino say the house odds are 95%, you will stop losing when the casino cover that 5% for the house. In that case your last bet will affect your next bet.

But other sites like Satoshi bones, or lucky bit (Who have a provably fair system) chose the bet result from the "Tx ID" and other factors. This way, your last bet don't will affect your next bet and with the right luck you can get the jackpock every bet.

Some times i think some sites have an anti-martingale system... if $bet = $bet*2; then; lose.

Speaking of gamblers fallacy, lol. Fortunately provably fair fixes this

seoincorporation

legendary

Activity: 3192

Merit: 2979

Top Crypto Casino

Each game is diferent, some games like casinos online (Who don't have a provably fair system) chose if you win or lost by the house winning, simple maths, if casino say the house odds are 95%, you will stop losing when the casino cover that 5% for the house. In that case your last bet will affect your next bet.

But other sites like Satoshi bones, or lucky bit (Who have a provably fair system) chose the bet result from the "Tx ID" and other factors. This way, your last bet don't will affect your next bet and with the right luck you can get the jackpock every bet.

Some times i think some sites have an anti-martingale system... if $bet = $bet*2; then; lose.

ndnh

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1005

New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit

Quote from: Bitcoiner2015 on March 25, 2015, 11:33:41 AM

If something has a 50% chance of happening, it has a 50% chance of happening, what has happened beforehand makes no difference.

Wrong! (I love to debate)

There is 50% chance that A will get a tail. A died. The chance is 0%. Grin

Or the site you were betting went down..

Now, who is talking for?

Phildo

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1000

Quote from: sherbyspark on March 26, 2015, 12:30:44 PM

Quote from: Phildo on March 26, 2015, 11:35:12 AM

Quote from: sherbyspark on March 26, 2015, 06:58:09 AM

The concept is pretty confusing actually. If you consider the odds of 11th Head after 10 heads, then its 50% , however if you consider the odds of 10 simultaneous heads, then thats very less , and the odds of 11 heads is lower, and so on.
So overall the gamblers fallacy isn't true but a tails to happen soon does increase by a bit according to me.

You don't care about the odds of throwing 11 heads in a row, after you already did 10. There is only 1 left to throw so it is 50/50.

The odds of throwing 11 heads in a row is (1/2)^11. That's the same as ((1/2)^10) * (1/2). The bold is throwing the first 10, AFTER you've thrown 10 heads in a row the odds of throwing 11 in a row are 50/50.

Yes thats true, but what I mean was say the odds of throwing the first 10 in a row is very low, then the odds of throwing 11 heads is even lower and hence chance of tails coming up to satisfy the natural existing probability of 50-50 should increase.

It doesn't. The odds of throwing the 11th are 50/50. To satisfy getting to 50/50 overall you just need to keep flipping the coin and getting 50% heads, look for my post earlier in this thread where I break it down.

sherbyspark

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Phildo on March 26, 2015, 11:35:12 AM

Quote from: sherbyspark on March 26, 2015, 06:58:09 AM

The concept is pretty confusing actually. If you consider the odds of 11th Head after 10 heads, then its 50% , however if you consider the odds of 10 simultaneous heads, then thats very less , and the odds of 11 heads is lower, and so on.
So overall the gamblers fallacy isn't true but a tails to happen soon does increase by a bit according to me.

You don't care about the odds of throwing 11 heads in a row, after you already did 10. There is only 1 left to throw so it is 50/50.

The odds of throwing 11 heads in a row is (1/2)^11. That's the same as ((1/2)^10) * (1/2). The bold is throwing the first 10, AFTER you've thrown 10 heads in a row the odds of throwing 11 in a row are 50/50.

Yes thats true, but what I mean was say the odds of throwing the first 10 in a row is very low, then the odds of throwing 11 heads is even lower and hence chance of tails coming up to satisfy the natural existing probability of 50-50 should increase.

Phildo

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1000

Quote from: sherbyspark on March 26, 2015, 06:58:09 AM

The concept is pretty confusing actually. If you consider the odds of 11th Head after 10 heads, then its 50% , however if you consider the odds of 10 simultaneous heads, then thats very less , and the odds of 11 heads is lower, and so on.
So overall the gamblers fallacy isn't true but a tails to happen soon does increase by a bit according to me.

You don't care about the odds of throwing 11 heads in a row, after you already did 10. There is only 1 left to throw so it is 50/50.

The odds of throwing 11 heads in a row is (1/2)^11. That's the same as ((1/2)^10) * (1/2). The bold is throwing the first 10, AFTER you've thrown 10 heads in a row the odds of throwing 11 in a row are 50/50.

duckydonald

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Pre-sale - March 18

Quote from: GannickusX on March 25, 2015, 08:35:58 AM

Quote from: duckydonald on March 25, 2015, 08:21:03 AM

I beleive in ebating the casion yo will need its bankroll plus another 35 percent more funds, to truly beat the house.

You would only beat the casino if it had no max bet but pretty much all the casinos do have a max bet

Yes that too.

Slark

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Bitcoiner2015 on March 25, 2015, 11:33:41 AM

If something has a 50% chance of happening, it has a 50% chance of happening, what has happened beforehand makes no difference.

From the mathematical point of view it is completely true. Yet people are not "mathematical" creatures they tend to have flawed logic of things. From my experience my and my friends noticed that we are all biased by gambler's fallacy. The best example here is slots, I lost too much money thinking that 'this time would be different' during the game.

GannickusX

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: sherbyspark on March 26, 2015, 06:58:09 AM

The concept is pretty confusing actually. If you consider the odds of 11th Head after 10 heads, then its 50% , however if you consider the odds of 10 simultaneous heads, then thats very less , and the odds of 11 heads is lower, and so on.
So overall the gamblers fallacy isn't true but a tails to happen soon does increase by a bit according to me.

Wrong. in 3 bets you have this possibilities:

HEADS HEADS HEADS
HEADS HEADS TAILS
HEADS TAILS HEADS
HEADS TAILS TAILS
TAILS TAILS TAILS
TAILS TAILS HEADS
TAILS HEADS TAILS
TAILS HEADS HEADS

12.5% chance of each of them

If you get 2 heads in a row then this is what is left

(HEADS HEADS) HEADS

(HEADS HEADS) TAILS

50% EACH

kotwica666

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1035

Theory is theory.. In practice there always is % House Edge so website owner (casino owner) is taking his part and in this way there never is 50%

sherbyspark

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

The concept is pretty confusing actually. If you consider the odds of 11th Head after 10 heads, then its 50% , however if you consider the odds of 10 simultaneous heads, then thats very less , and the odds of 11 heads is lower, and so on.
So overall the gamblers fallacy isn't true but a tails to happen soon does increase by a bit according to me.

GannickusX

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: Dannie on March 26, 2015, 06:39:30 AM

Quote from: GannickusX on March 26, 2015, 06:06:17 AM

Quote from: ndnh on March 26, 2015, 05:40:32 AM

Googled it.

yeah because you cant use those scientific calculators to calculate a number with so many zeros what i did and i dont know if it was correct was, 0.5 ^ 10 is 3 zeros, 0.5^ 100 is 30 zeros so i asumed that 0.5 ^ 10.000 was 3000 zeros

You are almost correct there.

There should be 3010 zeros after the decimal point as 0.5^10000 = 5.01237274920645200929755593374297774932156778133842583 × 10^-3011
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.5^10000

Oh nice i didnt know about that site, yeah i knew there must have been some more zeros i just didnt know how many thanks for the info tho.

Dannie

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: GannickusX on March 26, 2015, 06:06:17 AM

Quote from: ndnh on March 26, 2015, 05:40:32 AM

Googled it.

yeah because you cant use those scientific calculators to calculate a number with so many zeros what i did and i dont know if it was correct was, 0.5 ^ 10 is 3 zeros, 0.5^ 100 is 30 zeros so i asumed that 0.5 ^ 10.000 was 3000 zeros

You are almost correct there.

There should be 3010 zeros after the decimal point as 0.5^10000 = 5.01237274920645200929755593374297774932156778133842583 × 10^-3011
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.5^10000

GannickusX

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: ndnh on March 26, 2015, 05:40:32 AM

Googled it.

yeah because you cant use those scientific calculators to calculate a number with so many zeros what i did and i dont know if it was correct was, 0.5 ^ 10 is 3 zeros, 0.5^ 100 is 30 zeros so i asumed that 0.5 ^ 10.000 was 3000 zeros

ndnh

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1005

New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit

Googled it.

GannickusX

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Ingatqhvq

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

GannickusX

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: ndnh on March 26, 2015, 05:18:00 AM

lol, had already answered all those yesterday. Wink

Quote from: ndnh on March 25, 2015, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: ShetKid on March 25, 2015, 12:59:37 PM

Quote from: GannickusX on March 25, 2015, 07:19:10 AM

Quote from: Ingatqhvq on March 25, 2015, 06:27:13 AM

Well Gambler's Fallacy is derived from the law of large numbers. Of course if you flip a coin 10,000 times with all heads, the next flip is still a 50/50 but the odds of that happening are really low.

--snip--

That would be the chances of getting 10.000 heads in a row if im not mistaken

That is definitely not right. The odds of getting 10 heads in a row is 0.09% . And not the figure you have posted.

Any questions? Tongue

(If you are confusing '.' and ',' read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark#Countries_using_Arabic_numerals_with_decimal_point
Easy way to identify is if there are 3 zeroes, it is thousands and not a decimal point usually.)

Yep thats what i said and it was obvious i was talking about 10 thousand since the probability for it is almost impossible and anyways no one would be able to survive more than 50 heads in a row unless he was betting static bets but i dont see why would anyone do that

ndnh

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1005

New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit

lol, had already answered all those yesterday. Wink

Quote from: ndnh on March 25, 2015, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: ShetKid on March 25, 2015, 12:59:37 PM

Quote from: GannickusX on March 25, 2015, 07:19:10 AM

Quote from: Ingatqhvq on March 25, 2015, 06:27:13 AM

Well Gambler's Fallacy is derived from the law of large numbers. Of course if you flip a coin 10,000 times with all heads, the next flip is still a 50/50 but the odds of that happening are really low.

--snip--

That would be the chances of getting 10.000 heads in a row if im not mistaken

That is definitely not right. The odds of getting 10 heads in a row is 0.09% . And not the figure you have posted.

Any questions? Tongue

(If you are confusing '.' and ',' read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark#Countries_using_Arabic_numerals_with_decimal_point
Easy way to identify is if there are 3 zeroes, it is thousands and not a decimal point usually.)

GannickusX

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Topic: Gambler's fallacy, what do you think? - page 3. (Read 5873 times)