Topic: Gambler's fallacy, what do you think? - page 4. (Read 5936 times)
yeah i thinks it exists
Can someone tell me what is wrong with this:
Taking the entire possible set of rolls (from nonce 1 to a certain number) (rolls are from 0 to 100) with the same server seed and client seed as the Universal Set, if one of them turns out to be say 3, isn't the chance of getting another roll as 3, slightly (very very small amount) less than 1%?
That is U = 1000
1st roll = 3
Then the rolls left are 999, right? (nonce changes)
If this is right, gambler's fallacy will be true in provably fair systems, however small the impact is. (absolutely not in real life)
Edit: House edge will be trillion + times the difference. But for this, please assume house edge is 0%.
Taking the entire possible set of rolls (from nonce 1 to a certain number) (rolls are from 0 to 100) with the same server seed and client seed as the Universal Set, if one of them turns out to be say 3, isn't the chance of getting another roll as 3, slightly (very very small amount) less than 1%?
That is U = 1000
1st roll = 3
Then the rolls left are 999, right? (nonce changes)
If this is right, gambler's fallacy will be true in provably fair systems, however small the impact is. (absolutely not in real life)
Edit: House edge will be trillion + times the difference. But for this, please assume house edge is 0%.
I am not sure I understand your point.
Are you saying that, because there is no collision found yet, sha512(server seed, client seed, N) will not be the same as sha512(server seed, client seed, 1), so the chance of having a result same as the first roll is lower?
Well, I am saying that if there are 10000 combinations of SHA(server seed, client seed, nonce), etc. of a coin and assume there are x heads and y tails. If the first one is head, won't the probability of getting a head on next toss be (x-1)/(x+y)?
(This won't happen in real life of course, but is it true for provably fair systems?)
Can someone tell me what is wrong with this:
Taking the entire possible set of rolls (from nonce 1 to a certain number) (rolls are from 0 to 100) with the same server seed and client seed as the Universal Set, if one of them turns out to be say 3, isn't the chance of getting another roll as 3, slightly (very very small amount) less than 1%?
That is U = 1000
1st roll = 3
Then the rolls left are 999, right? (nonce changes)
If this is right, gambler's fallacy will be true in provably fair systems, however small the impact is. (absolutely not in real life)
Edit: House edge will be trillion + times the difference. But for this, please assume house edge is 0%.
Taking the entire possible set of rolls (from nonce 1 to a certain number) (rolls are from 0 to 100) with the same server seed and client seed as the Universal Set, if one of them turns out to be say 3, isn't the chance of getting another roll as 3, slightly (very very small amount) less than 1%?
That is U = 1000
1st roll = 3
Then the rolls left are 999, right? (nonce changes)
If this is right, gambler's fallacy will be true in provably fair systems, however small the impact is. (absolutely not in real life)
Edit: House edge will be trillion + times the difference. But for this, please assume house edge is 0%.
I am not sure I understand your point.
Are you saying that, because there is no collision found yet, sha512(server seed, client seed, N) will not be the same as sha512(server seed, client seed, 1), so the chance of having a result same as the first roll is lower?
Can someone tell me what is wrong with this:
Taking the entire possible set of rolls (from nonce 1 to a certain number) (rolls are from 0 to 100) with the same server seed and client seed as the Universal Set, if one of them turns out to be say 3, isn't the chance of getting another roll as 3, slightly (very very small amount) less than 1%?
That is U = 1000
1st roll = 3
Then the rolls left are 999, right? (nonce changes)
If this is right, gambler's fallacy will be true in provably fair systems, however small the impact is. (absolutely not in real life)
Edit: House edge will be trillion + times the difference. But for this, please assume house edge is 0%.
Taking the entire possible set of rolls (from nonce 1 to a certain number) (rolls are from 0 to 100) with the same server seed and client seed as the Universal Set, if one of them turns out to be say 3, isn't the chance of getting another roll as 3, slightly (very very small amount) less than 1%?
That is U = 1000
1st roll = 3
Then the rolls left are 999, right? (nonce changes)
If this is right, gambler's fallacy will be true in provably fair systems, however small the impact is. (absolutely not in real life)
Edit: House edge will be trillion + times the difference. But for this, please assume house edge is 0%.
I think that mathematically speaking, the Gambler's fallacy is correct. By that I mean, it's correct that it's a fallacy. The universe doesn't really care if you've hit a streak or are losing - every single bet, in perfect theory, is individualized. The odds are, mathematically, calculated by chance. However, in practice, there are tiny negligible variables in games that affect theory. In Craps or Roulette, for example, the way a person flicks their wrist when they throw the dice, or the negligible difference in force used when adding the ball to the wheel, can affect the odds. Could the brain somehow catch a pattern to optimize the odds in someone's favor when throwing dice? Highly unlikely, in fact, pretty much impossible. But, tiny unconscious self-correcting measures to get a better throw might change the odds by a sliver.
It comes down to: is there such a thing as luck? Or is it just the fact that every instance of existance in existance is an infinite chain of mathematical calculations taking variables (causes) to create sum/results (effects) which in turn continue to affect the world. I don't think luck is anything more than a human interpretation of these events and their coincidental patterns - out biggest skill, if anything, is our ability to see patterns in the world and learn from them in a logical way. That's how were able to read without deciphering each and every letter in a word, how we're able to instantly recognize what a door is, what a floor is, what the difference is between a car and a motorcycle, etc. Superstitions and woo are much the same way. Does that mean there is no point to gambling? Hell no. While I don't think luck exists in a quantifiable way, curiosity just makes the idea of doing something over and over again for the chance of beating the odds for fortune very attractive. So, in a way of perception, luck does exist - it's the descriptor for coincidence. The question then is if there is a thing such as good luck or bad luck, some force that affects coincidence. That, I don't believe. You can have good luck in an instance, which means that you've beaten the odds in that particular moment, but that luck doesn't realistically apply to the next instance. It was just a coincidence - a lucky coincidence.
My 2 Satoshi, if anything.
It comes down to: is there such a thing as luck? Or is it just the fact that every instance of existance in existance is an infinite chain of mathematical calculations taking variables (causes) to create sum/results (effects) which in turn continue to affect the world. I don't think luck is anything more than a human interpretation of these events and their coincidental patterns - out biggest skill, if anything, is our ability to see patterns in the world and learn from them in a logical way. That's how were able to read without deciphering each and every letter in a word, how we're able to instantly recognize what a door is, what a floor is, what the difference is between a car and a motorcycle, etc. Superstitions and woo are much the same way. Does that mean there is no point to gambling? Hell no. While I don't think luck exists in a quantifiable way, curiosity just makes the idea of doing something over and over again for the chance of beating the odds for fortune very attractive. So, in a way of perception, luck does exist - it's the descriptor for coincidence. The question then is if there is a thing such as good luck or bad luck, some force that affects coincidence. That, I don't believe. You can have good luck in an instance, which means that you've beaten the odds in that particular moment, but that luck doesn't realistically apply to the next instance. It was just a coincidence - a lucky coincidence.
My 2 Satoshi, if anything.
This is pretty interesting. I always thought the chance was the same each play. I guess it's all what you believe / luck.
The chance is the same every play.
that's what the gambler's fallacy is. People THINK that if you have a streak of heads, tails becomes more likely to get back to 50/50, but you don't. that's why it's a FALLACY, because it's false.
The gambler's fallacy is real because people don't understand how math works.
If you flip 6 heads in a row (on a fair coin), the odds of the next flip are still 50/50 AND we can still expect the results to be 50% as we go into the future.
After the first 6 you got heads 100% of the time.
If the next 4 are 50/50, you have 8 heads out of 10. Heads came out 80% of the time
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 13 heads out of 20. Heads came out 65% of the time.
If the next 30 are 50/50, you have 28 heads out of 50. Heads came out 56% of the time.
If the next 50 are 50/50 you have 53 heads out of 100. Heads came out 53% of the time.
If the next 100 are 50/50, you have 103 heads out of 200. heads came out 51.5% of the time.
If the next 1,000 are 50/50, you have 603 heads out of 1200. Heads came out 50.25% of the time.
If the next 10,000 are 50/50, you have 5603 heads out of 11200, heads came out 50.00268% of the time.
As you keep going you actually get to 50/50.
If you flip 6 heads in a row (on a fair coin), the odds of the next flip are still 50/50 AND we can still expect the results to be 50% as we go into the future.
After the first 6 you got heads 100% of the time.
If the next 4 are 50/50, you have 8 heads out of 10. Heads came out 80% of the time
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 13 heads out of 20. Heads came out 65% of the time.
If the next 30 are 50/50, you have 28 heads out of 50. Heads came out 56% of the time.
If the next 50 are 50/50 you have 53 heads out of 100. Heads came out 53% of the time.
If the next 100 are 50/50, you have 103 heads out of 200. heads came out 51.5% of the time.
If the next 1,000 are 50/50, you have 603 heads out of 1200. Heads came out 50.25% of the time.
If the next 10,000 are 50/50, you have 5603 heads out of 11200, heads came out 50.00268% of the time.
As you keep going you actually get to 50/50.
You are right, but luck is more important than math, and a few hands can't be representative.
Luck is important if just gamble a few hands, so if win, continue bet the result of last winning.
Winning or loss streak is very normal, we may win 70% in 100 hands, but in the long term, the probability is almost 50% or less, because of casino house edge.
This is pretty interesting. I always thought the chance was the same each play. I guess it's all what you believe / luck.
The gambler's fallacy is real because people don't understand how math works.
If you flip 6 heads in a row (on a fair coin), the odds of the next flip are still 50/50 AND we can still expect the results to be 50% as we go into the future.
After the first 6 you got heads 100% of the time.
If the next 4 are 50/50, you have 8 heads out of 10. Heads came out 80% of the time
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 13 heads out of 20. Heads came out 65% of the time.
If the next 30 are 50/50, you have 28 heads out of 50. Heads came out 56% of the time.
If the next 50 are 50/50 you have 53 heads out of 100. Heads came out 53% of the time.
If the next 100 are 50/50, you have 103 heads out of 200. heads came out 51.5% of the time.
If the next 1,000 are 50/50, you have 603 heads out of 1200. Heads came out 50.25% of the time.
If the next 10,000 are 50/50, you have 5603 heads out of 11200, heads came out 50.00268% of the time.
As you keep going you actually get to 50/50.
If you flip 6 heads in a row (on a fair coin), the odds of the next flip are still 50/50 AND we can still expect the results to be 50% as we go into the future.
After the first 6 you got heads 100% of the time.
If the next 4 are 50/50, you have 8 heads out of 10. Heads came out 80% of the time
If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 13 heads out of 20. Heads came out 65% of the time.
If the next 30 are 50/50, you have 28 heads out of 50. Heads came out 56% of the time.
If the next 50 are 50/50 you have 53 heads out of 100. Heads came out 53% of the time.
If the next 100 are 50/50, you have 103 heads out of 200. heads came out 51.5% of the time.
If the next 1,000 are 50/50, you have 603 heads out of 1200. Heads came out 50.25% of the time.
If the next 10,000 are 50/50, you have 5603 heads out of 11200, heads came out 50.00268% of the time.
As you keep going you actually get to 50/50.
Any strategy is risky in luck based games. What was your original deposit that helped you earn 10 BTC?
I made about 50X of my deposit
So my principal was about 0.2btc, it happened 1 year ago.
And this strategy is a gamble guru taught me, he earned XXX btc from dice.
You can try it 
In general, we can see some guys get 10 or more loss streak by autobet because they don't change luck. Very sad. They should use my strategy.
Rrrright...
Some interesting discussion has ben taking place, maybe I did in fact phrase some things in the wrong way this way causing some to be confused. I'll just leave the wikipedia page so people don't get confused with my silly definitions.
I am a part time gambler and you have kind of confused me to be honest i am not sure what exactly you are trying to say, but i will give it a try to answer from what i understand. I see losing streaks as exactly that, but i also believe in something called the law of averages and this is especially true with gambling.
Basically the more losses you are having on a streak the closer you are to a winning streak, and that is as deep as i go or need to go. 52 cards turned wrong way in front of you, out of them you have 4 aces in random places but they are 100% there, you start to flip the cards over one by one trying to find the aces you go threw 10 cards still no ace 15- 20 no ace yet but you know they are there so you also know
'The more you turn the closer you are to the ace' could translate to the more you lose any given streak the closer you are to a win.
Basically the more losses you are having on a streak the closer you are to a winning streak, and that is as deep as i go or need to go. 52 cards turned wrong way in front of you, out of them you have 4 aces in random places but they are 100% there, you start to flip the cards over one by one trying to find the aces you go threw 10 cards still no ace 15- 20 no ace yet but you know they are there so you also know
'The more you turn the closer you are to the ace' could translate to the more you lose any given streak the closer you are to a win.
I used to think like that. I always went double when i lost, because you have to win and lose equal amounts right? Thats what I told myself.
For it to be TRULY random things like streaks and weird patterns will happen too, because it is random and unpredictable. If I lost 3 times in a row, I told myself the 4th time that there was a 6.25% chance of losing because 50% * 50% * 50% * 50% is 6.25% chance so losing 4 times in a row has a 6.25% chance.
I am glad I don't think like that anymore
For it to be TRULY random things like streaks and weird patterns will happen too, because it is random and unpredictable. If I lost 3 times in a row, I told myself the 4th time that there was a 6.25% chance of losing because 50% * 50% * 50% * 50% is 6.25% chance so losing 4 times in a row has a 6.25% chance.
I am glad I don't think like that anymore
You and OP are defining it the wrong way.
DEFINITION of 'Gambler's Fallacy' When an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events.
It exists means there are people who erraneously believe that.
DEFINITION of 'Gambler's Fallacy' When an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events.
It exists means there are people who erraneously believe that.
You are trying to catch me out on a grammatical technicality. Yes the fallacy itself exists, but it NOT an accurate representation of reality. Ergo, it is not true.
Usually people go further into the loss because they feel it's more unlikely for a 50% loss to occur many times in a row, which is true.
It depends on how many events you have completed and what you are comparing it against. History is completely irrelevant to the future in these events (not all events - some have correlation, but gambling shouldn't or it's rigged) MEANING it doesn't matter how many times you have won or lost in the past, you're JUST as likely to win or lose as before.
http://i.imgur.com/t5ojcW2.png
Many gamblers believe that getting further into a loss/win streak becomes less unlikely as the streak's number gets bigger. Gambler's fallacy says that each bet is calcuated individually and only it's chances of win/loss are the ones that count.
You can click on the image for a wikipedia link. What do you think?
Many gamblers believe that getting further into a loss/win streak becomes less unlikely as the streak's number gets bigger. Gambler's fallacy says that each bet is calcuated individually and only it's chances of win/loss are the ones that count.
You can click on the image for a wikipedia link. What do you think?
The bolded statement is incorrect. (It is called math, not gambler's fallacy
)See definition below:
It absolutely exists; I lost almost all my balance because of that. twice now.
I got too many 7s in roulettts and lost too a few days ago.(lucky this one was a bonus code)
Edit: You got that 'Gambler's fallacy says that' part wrong. It is just the opposite.
I got too many 7s in roulettts and lost too a few days ago.(lucky this one was a bonus code)
Edit: You got that 'Gambler's fallacy says that' part wrong. It is just the opposite.
Does not exist. Please look up variance or playing on a rigged site. The Gambler's Fallacy statement itself is correct.
Wrong. Gambler's fallacy exists.
You and OP are defining it the wrong way.
DEFINITION of 'Gambler's Fallacy' When an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events.
It exists means there are people who erraneously believe that.
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?
(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.)
I once invented a modified Martingale strategy that produced an extended winning streak so huge that it seemed like I was on to something!
You can make a lot of money while ignoring the fallacy, but eventually the odds always win out over luck.
You can make a lot of money while ignoring the fallacy, but eventually the odds always win out over luck.
Jump to: