Bitcoin Forum

https://i.imgur.com/t5ojcW2.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy)

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.

Disregard my silly definitions! Read the wikipedia page and tell us what you think about gambler's fallacy.

You can click on the image for a wikipedia link.

I believe ( even true ) that if you win 10 bets on 50% win chance then losing the 11th bet is also 50% , it doesnt reduce, but on the other hand its also that its hard to get 11 loses.

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.

It's called a fallacy for a reason. According to it, people believe that chances of something happening again become are reducing as it repeats while it's just the win/loss chances that should be taken into account individually for each bet.

But anyway, people shouldn't rely on my explaination, that's why I posted a wikipedia link.

It's called, what You wrote is rigging the game.
Because the rules are not like that. ;D

You probably forgot to mention that there is not 50% ? ::)
There is also need for each bet to pay %.  ;D  

This % You didn't just slowly and takes money from the man who makes a bet.

Although I can offer to change the conditions of the game.
Let the tote asks first what falls combination. I make my own.
And then let himself throws a coin until then - until someone falls ? ;D

Does not exist. Please look up variance or playing on a rigged site. The Gambler's Fallacy statement itself is correct.

If I were you, I would bet 7 when it hit 7 twice.

It is called luck, I usually use this strategies in dice, if I win, I would bet the same bet, if I lose, I bet the opposite.

I have successfully used this method to earn 10btc from dice within 1 week.  8) 8)

Any strategy is risky in luck based games. What was your original deposit that helped you earn 10 BTC?

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.

I made about 50X of my deposit  ;D

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.  ;D   You can try it  :D

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...

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%


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

It is the reason why people lose their money. Martingale does not work. The goat behind the door does not care about previous choices and chances are reset every time you take a gamble. Unless it is rigged.

yes andits very unlikely to loose many times in a row but its yet not impossible.

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

WOW - you got soo close, you left out one 0.
Lol ;)

Damn i knew the number of zeros were a little bit too small, thanks for the info :)

Well fallacy or not, I do it because I don't see any other way of betting, if you're playing at 2x and you're aiming for above 50, keep going at it after several below 50 rolls seems like the only logical thing to do because it has to hit sometimes.

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

In theory, the next result is independent of previous result.
Especially in dice games, the streak can continue until you lose all your bankroll. This is the reason why martingale is flawed.

You're touching the concepts of luck and streak here and these are not mathematical.
People are not only ones and zeroes, if it was like that nobody would step out of line and people wouldn't believe in prophecies and the supernatural.

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.

I once invented a modified Martingale strategy that produced an extended winning streak so huge that it seemed like I was on to something!  ;D
You can make a lot of money while ignoring the fallacy, but eventually the odds always win out over luck.

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

The bolded statement is incorrect. (It is called math, not gambler's fallacy :P)

See definition below:




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.








Any questions? :P

(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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Sounds like horse shit if you ask me....seen some of his posts here all with amounts less than 1btc lol

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.

This is pretty interesting. I always thought the chance was the same each play. I guess it's all what you believe / luck.

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.

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.

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.

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%.

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?)

Who is talking about 10 heads? I said 10.000 bets, 10 thousand in a row

The confusion is caused by your "10.000".
Part of the world is using a comma as thousand separator, and another part of the world is using a dot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark#Examples_of_use

yeah i thinks it exists

I would understand the confusion if it was 10.00 but it has 3 zeros .000 why would anyone use 3 zeros as a decimal?

lol, had already answered all those yesterday. ;)

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

How much zero do you write?
But the chance is really low, it's almost can be written 0.

Well if i remember correctly around 3.000 zeros, it was an aproximation probably it needs some more zeros

Googled it.

http://i.gyazo.com/a833bde44d563ebfef486e304bb079f4.png

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 (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.

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.

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%

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

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.

Yes that too.

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.

Wrong! (I love to debate)

There is 50% chance that A will get a tail. A died. The chance is 0%.  ;D
Or the site you were betting went down..

Now, who is talking for?

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

I think that the gamblers fallacy can be applied to a lot of things. It is about the past evens affecting future events like some stock market price speculation like "it went down last week time to buy because it will go up now". You just have to think logically to avoid such issues from clouding your mind when you are making important decisions regarding money. This can also come from emotional impact of losing money in the past so you feel like you have to earn it back but you end on losing more in the process.

Whenever people say they are due for a hit/number/color whatever, they are full of shit.

I think the gambler's fallacy theory could be applied to sportsbetting too because for example the France-Brazil game yesterday finished 1-3 and knowing that the last game in Brazil ended 3-0 I would have thought now it was time for France to win having less substitutes in the team but guess what it the stats don't matter and each event is one unaffected instance. And yes I lost my bet on France to win  8)

Not really. In sports, there are too many factors to accurately estimate the probability of a team/player winning, so you don't even reach the point of gambler's fallacy. Besides, in sports, events could be connected.

For example, if you lost to the team yesterday, you might be more motivated to play better today. Or perhaps you're so scared you can't perform your best. So yeah, it doesn't really apply to sports.

Gambler's fallacy theory is just for something random, Sports game is totally unrandom, it depends the ability of each player, you can't say the ability of each player is random.
 

That's true. Let's say you're playing slots, you're betting on a random event, calculated by an algorithm inside the machine.
In case of a football match on the other hand you have to consider things like: both team's performance against each other in the past and their world ranking, the current condition of the team and recent matches, but also completely random events, like fouls or red cards, that can completely change the outcome of the game. Even a much better team will have a hard time if it loses its key player during a match.

I know a lot of people who make a lot of money with sport bets but i dont think they take in count all those factors honestly. I mean obviously a red card is an important factor but you dont know that will happen and you are betting before the match starts so those events are something you cant count on.

Of course, but what I wanted to say is sports betting is not typical gambling, as it combines the predictable with the unpredictable. Some random facts and some known ones. Let's say one of the top ranked teams faces a team from the second hundred, only that special factor like a red card or a penalty could swing the odds in the underdog's favor. Same thing with recent matches, if a team lost 2 matches against another team in a row, chances they will win are incredibly small, while at the same time two losses in a row at slots don't increase your chance of winning the third one.

Yeah i know what you are saying, past events do affect in sports. like if one team has won 10 games in a row, its likely that they will win most of their incoming games, but its still not exactly correct to say: since they won 10 games they are going to win the next one, or lose it.

Well yesterday for example Czech Republic and Netherlands were the big favorites, strangely enough Latvia and Turkey managed to score in the first half and the equalisers came late in the ending of the games. Usually almost no one would have expected these events to go this way so why don't you consider these instances random?

Sports games are different. Most of the result depends on the players and some of the low profile matches are being fixed illegally.

Yes they are random, sometimes but the fact that people manages to make profit even in long term from sport bets indicates that is not random, sure sometimes things like that happen but most of times it doesnt so with knowledge of the sport and really important too, knowing how much to bet, you can end up making profit

france was favored to win. the fact that the game was in France had a lot more to do with that than the result of the last game they played 2 years ago.

Sports is a terrible place to use the gambler's fallacy because there are so many hints that it might work that people get the wrong idea. There are many, many factors that go into who is going to win a sports game, and who won the last one may be one of them, but "france lost 2 years ago, they should win today" is a pretty bad example of using the gambler's fallacy.

the people that in take lots of stuff into account. You can only put the red card that happens in the middle of the game into account if you are doing in-game betting, but you can bet that anyone who is good at sports betting takes red card suspensions and injuries into account when making a bet on a soccer game.

There are still some chance in sports game. In basketball when you shoot the ball theres a chance it will spin off the backboard weirdly, you jump weirdly, your muscles might act a bit differently, there is so many variables. Theres always the edge that a team has of winning but it isn't predetermined.

So what, it has variables, variables are just something totally different to chance. Its like throwing a coin into the air, if you know all the variables you will be able to calculate where and how exactly the coin will land, of course in sports you wont be able to know all the variables but variables mean that the fallacy doesnt aply to it

Yes, there is chance, but how the first free throw bounced off the rim has absolutely nothing to do with how the second one will bounce off the rim (if it even hits the rim).

True, but its the same thing as this. if the first one doesn't go in the net then you might bet on the second one because "the odds have to be even right".
Also you CAN apply martingale to sports betting, if you lose your bet you keep doubling until you win, its still possible

Martingale in sports works better, you can also use it in trading, sort of. Its way safer in sports than dice or any other gambling game but it can fail in the end aswell unless you have good funds and you also bet with other methods at the same time

Not necessarily. For example, if you threw the ball at the hoop, and it landed 10 meters away, chances are, you would adjust your aim and strength.

Plus there are also psychological factors at play here. So I wouldn't say two free throws are completely disconnected. Unlike a dice throw.

The odds most certainly don't "have to be even."  if you are going to hit 50% of your free throws over the course of your life, and you miss one, the odds of the next one are still 50/50 because the odds "be even" when the next 1 million free throws are 50/50 overall. You can apply martingale to sports betting the same way you can to every other bet. it will be great until you get on a losing streak that hits the maximum bet or the end of your bankroll.

at the end always finish on 50%... but how we consider house edge... you'll always lose

Sports is weird, because most of the time the events people are talking about are not independent (like dice throws or coin flipping) but that doesn't mean the fallacy doesn't apply. It is possible to lose x games in a row, it is possible to win x games in a row. The result of one game will have a lot more to do with the skill level/conditions the game will be played under than the result of the previous games.

Sport odds and statistics is very different with other things like dice and flips. The approximate outcome is known a flip to be 50% so flip 10 times with no heads is extremely rare, but sports team losing 10 times in a row is not so rare.

does martiglan work?

You'll always lose... don't gamble

i don't think so... i think all will bring to 50/50 at end

What? Thats a lie. Depending on what the house edge is, thats what will bring at the end, if you have a 49% chance of winning and you play 1 million times you will be damn close to 49%, the problem is that in those bets no one guarantees you, you wont get 30 reds in a row or 30 blacks or both, thats why martingale fails.

Imagine there were 1000 doors and there are goats behind all but one, you now choose door 1, the host opens all the other doors but number 1 and number 267.

Would you go with door number 1 or door number 267?

Do you think the goat cares?
If youd like to get that car, you better change to door 267 as motherfucking fast as you can.

Do you really believe there is a 50% chance still?

lol, if I am correct, I think the chances of winning are 999/1000 by picking door 267. ;)

Chances are, both door number 1 and door number 267 contains goats. The car is in a door that's already been opened.

the chances are 50% by picking the door 267 because you are choosing between 2 doors, 50/50
The chances are 1 / 1000 the first time you pick a door.

Please don't turn this thread into a monty hall argument. We have idiots in here who can't figure out the most basic of probability, if you start discussing something that legit statisticians have disagreed on everyone is going to lose their coins and their brain cells much faster.

Bolded is the key. Just read darwerft's post, as if the problem is trivial, in an attempt to make himself look smart or something, when he can't even formulate the whole problem. Seriously.

@XinXan: that's a logical fallacy. What's the chances of 1,000,000,000 dollars suddenly appearing in my bedroom? It either happens or it doesn't, so it's 50/50, right? Well, just because there are only 2 choices doesn't mean it's 50/50.

hmmm, I kinda agree on the image.

eventually when you keep rolling you are improving the odds of a 50% rate, as opposed to just rolling once.

Not really, ndnhc is correct.
I would suggest you to take a look at http://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-monty-hall-problem/.
Or you could make a simple simulation to check the probability yourself.

yes but you must play for long time to see house edge.

sometime you can win big! but other time you play and play and play and no wins. this is random.

this is all based on speculation of having a big bank roll right?

if so, then yeah you`ll see the edge out to a win.

This is all based on the principal of knowing you have a higher source roll then the house.

I dont see any other way you`ll out win them. But, then fallacy means you know the outcome so quit way ahead of that time since you know its not worth it.

The "Gambler's Fallacy" is that people think that a coin has a better than 50/50 chance of landing on heads because the last flip landed on tails. This is a fallacy because every flip (of a fair coin) has a 50% chance of landing on heads. The last flip has no bearing on the next one.