It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
When a sequence of independent trials of a random process is observed to contain a remarkably long run in which some possible outcome did not occur (for example, when a roulette ball ended up on black 26 times in a row, and not even once on red, as reportedly happened on August 18, 1913 in the Monte Carlo Casino[277]), the underrepresented outcome is often believed then to be more likely for the next trial: it is thought to be "due".[278][279][280] This misconception is known as the gambler's fallacy; in reality, by the definition of statistical independence, that outcome is just as likely or unlikely on the next trial as always—a property sometimes informally described by the phrase, "the system has no memory".
List of common misconceptions
Yeah, that's basically what the gamblers fallacy states. But check out my edit, I think I answered my own question.
My understanding is that a number between 1 and 50 coming up again when that single "flip" is taken into account, the odds are 1 in 50 just like before.
Yeah, that's correct. Seems a bit high though. I was getting lots of streaks higher than 2.
However, if one takes the entire sequence into context, the odds of having three flips in a row is 1/50x50x50.
Well I've already read it. What has been read cannot be unread!
Edit: Sorry, I see you noticed your error and corrected your post in the edit, in which case ignore my post.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by humphreysjim
Well I've already read it. What has been read cannot be unread!
Edit: Sorry, I see you noticed your error and corrected your post in the edit, in which case ignore my post.
Anyway, I did I better test. Instead of 50 possible numbers, I simply used two, so it was more like a coin flip. The results confirmed the gambler's fallacy. The ratio of changed to not-changed was 1:1 this time.edit on 30-10-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
I have never ever ever believed in gambler's fallacy before. In practice, it's never right. It is only correct on paper. Unfortunately for many in the statistical mathematics community, reality doesn't play out on paper.
originally posted by: scaber
That chance of getting heads two times in a row is .5 squared as is the chance of getting heads then tails because each has a .5 chance of occurring. The chance of getting heads three times in a row is .5 cubed which is .125 which is the same as a chance of getting heads tails heads heads heads tails tails tails heads so on and so forth. These situations have an equal likelihood of occurring. If you were to bet on any situation not occurring, your chances of winning are 1-.125. Drastic player favor because there is only one situation out of a plethora of possibilities which can happen as we push it to the 4th 5th and so on.
The chance of getting heads 5 times in a row then a head is .5^6 the chance of getting 5heads in a row then a tail is .5^6 CONFERMING the essence of gamblers fallacy. HOWEVER
There is a way arround this. Technically it doesn't matter what you bet on as long as
You keep betting on something using an advanced martingale system that increase the bet by 110% instead of 100%. This allows the statistical RISK to decrease per bet while increasing profit s far beyond traditional martingale betting. Increasing the bet by 111.1111% keeps the RISK linear.
The chance of losing 1 time in a row Is .5 the chance of losing 2 times in a row is .5 squared the chance of losing 5 times in a row is .5^5. You can bET ON ANYTHING so long as you keep betting double at least when you lose.
I work in a casino and have personally tried this out .
I also run simulation s and have made tons of vertual profit.
If you can find a roulette machine that base a min bet of 1 to 3 dollars, that is ideal. There are some around the casinos where I work.
Good luck