"Reversion to the mean" and "gambler's fallacy" in gambling.

[Julien_Olynpic]

Even with random events, we cannot fully believe that they are truly random. Everyone knows the cognitive fallacy called "gambler's fallacy", which is when a gambler believes that the outcome of future events depends on previous ones. However, the truth is that it is difficult to believe. Here, practice diverges from theory. We all know the theoretical foundations of the independence of future random events from past ones, and those who do not know - they can be easily found on the Internet. But let's look at practical evidence. Wikipedia writes about a game of roulette in which black came up 26 times in a row. This is one of those records that is cited as an argument. But in fact, 26 is not such a large number of recorded coincidences. Can you give examples when red or black came up 100 or 500 times in a row? I do not think this is possible in practice. Although theory allows it. Can you give practical, rather than theoretical, arguments against the gambler's fallacy?
Do you believe that the gambler's fallacy is not a fallacy at all?

[Free Market Capitalist]

Regardless of how many times in a row a black, or a red may come out, the fallacy is that you are betting on individual events, not the series. In the case you cite, if black came out 26 times in a row, people were not betting on what was going to happen in that series of 26, they could bet each time on what was going to happen in that particular roll.

[tsaroz]

For a dependent system like drawing balls from a bag without replacing them, we could expect the undrawn ball to keep on increasing in probability. But unless the previous results changes the next draw, a random thing like a coin toss, roulette result or a dice side turning would never depend on the previous result. It all depends on probability and the probability of each of outcome would be exactly the same. No gambling experience or strategy would help you there.

There's a different system I'd call a psuedo dependent like on crash games who's results are per-determined and averages to specific number like 1.98, if the average of all the outcomes prior are less than 1.98 we could conclude there would be a larger average on rest of the outcomes but that won't help us with gambling as it would still be average of outcomes and we can't determine how large the large outcomes would be.

[Dave1]

Even with random events, we cannot fully believe that they are truly random. Everyone knows the cognitive fallacy called "gambler's fallacy", which is when a gambler believes that the outcome of future events depends on previous ones. However, the truth is that it is difficult to believe. Here, practice diverges from theory. We all know the theoretical foundations of the independence of future random events from past ones, and those who do not know - they can be easily found on the Internet. But let's look at practical evidence. Wikipedia writes about a game of roulette in which black came up 26 times in a row. This is one of those records that is cited as an argument. But in fact, 26 is not such a large number of recorded coincidences. Can you give examples when red or black came up 100 or 500 times in a row? I do not think this is possible in practice. Although theory allows it. Can you give practical, rather than theoretical, arguments against the gambler's fallacy?
Do you believe that the gambler's fallacy is not a fallacy at all?

Well that's one example there, the law of large numbers, it will take millions of spins in a roulette before it can stabilized, but there will be times along that millions of spins that there will be red streak or black streak.

Or maybe the one that spreads this fallacy or the casinos themselves are also using it to somewhat tell gamblers that they should believed in it when it fact there are no numbers and science behind it. In short casinos have been capitalizing from it since the beginning and could have make a lot of money already.

[viljy]

The "gambler's fallacy" comes from the fact that a gambler expects to win when the mathematical expectation is negative. In such a situation, he expects an extreme result (a win) after normal outcomes (averages), but this is a "reversion to the mean" on the contrary, and it doesn't work that way.

But the "Regression toward the mean" perfectly explains why you should stop gambling immediately after winning. Of course, a relatively large gain. That's exactly what the ability to stop in time is important for.

[Apocollapse]

If the future events depends on previous events, it means the games aren't provably fair because the casino or provider has set up the outcome.

But if the future events doesn't depends on previous events, the games are provably fair, the outcome always random.

So, which one do people interested? from my observation, almost all people like to gamble with random outcome because when they lose, they always complain the casino or provider already set up the outcome.

Now why people are complain even the outcome is random?

[Sanitough]

This is where we start making things complicated overanalyzing something that’s really just random. At the end of the day, the house always has the edge. That’s it. Case closed.

The problem is, we often jump straight into trying to crack the code of a game we think we can beat without realizing the odds are stacked against us. And let’s be honest, if a game has a house edge, that means in the long run… the casino always comes out on top. Sure, you might win now and then, but consistently? Nah..

[Mr. Magkaisa]

We cant predict the future even if we are betting on 2 choices. having 50% chance outcome will not decide the future.
You can go with red for 10 consecutive times and win it all or lose it 10 times.
Andyou cant be sure that the 11th result will be the same. we can have the chance on that event and another for the future.

In gambling it is always a luck or probability.

[Hewlet]

The problem is, we often jump straight into trying to crack the code of a game we think we can beat without realizing the odds are stacked against us. And let’s be honest, if a game has a house edge, that means in the long run… the casino always comes out on top. Sure, you might win now and then, but consistently? Nah..

The issue is that even with the reality that the casinos always have the edge above gamblers, the wish to win will always prompt you to making this sort of analysis just to see if you stand at an advantage above the bookmakers or the casinos. Using past event to even predict future occurrence is not something that theoretically might seems feasible but in reality might not yield the expected outcome as you might presume.

Regardless of the theory be it fallacy or not, gambling is a game of luck, the odds are against you and at the end, you're never certain of the outcome. If you win, just count yourself lucky and if your analysis helps you win, you're still lucky.

[Outhue]

If the future events depends on previous events, it means the games aren't provably fair because the casino or provider has set up the outcome.

But if the future events doesn't depends on previous events, the games are provably fair, the outcome always random.

So, which one do people interested? from my observation, almost all people like to gamble with random outcome because when they lose, they always complain the casino or provider already set up the outcome.

Now why people are complain even the outcome is random?

Because they are human? We are never satisfied with everything, it's in our nature to be greedy and put blames on everything, humans will talk against a working system that benefits them until a worse system is introduced and they will regret and compare with the old in an instant.

It also shows that there is not you can do to satisfy human beings, sometimes we want what's broken and sometimes we want something that works.

People are so stubborn that they will never accept that gambling has everything to do with been lucky yet when they loss constantly they point finger at the casinos system saying they intentionally make them lose over and over.

If the future of gambling depends on the previous games or bets then it's no more a fair gamble, something is clearly broken and corrupt.

[Hispo]

Because they are human? We are never satisfied with everything, it's in our nature to be greedy and put blames on everything, humans will talk against a working system that benefits them until a worse system is introduced and they will regret and compare with the old in an instant.

Sure, human behavior and human nature is pretty much strange and gambling is one of the businesses and ecosystems which brings out the true nature of human beings onto the table. In the case of gambler's fallacy it is due to the need to human beings to try to find patterns to any event we were and link the past to the present and the future, even to the point of it ignoring the randomness which rules the game itself.
It is one of the consequences of greed, we believe we can read what the roulette is going to do next and we want to take advantage of it, only to find ourselves losing more money than expected.
Human emotions are highly capitalized by businesses and not only by casinos.

[stadus]

If the future of gambling depends on the previous games or bets then it's no more a fair gamble, something is clearly broken and corrupt.

It doesn’t totally depend on past results, but they can be useful especially in sports betting. Now, if we’re talking about slots, that’s a whole different story. Past results there mean nothing, since it’s all just random spins and pure luck.  So it really depends on the game you're playing. In sports, history can give you a hint. In slots? Well… just hope the zeus are in a good mood.

[Sanitough]

The problem is, we often jump straight into trying to crack the code of a game we think we can beat without realizing the odds are stacked against us. And let’s be honest, if a game has a house edge, that means in the long run… the casino always comes out on top. Sure, you might win now and then, but consistently? Nah..

The issue is that even with the reality that the casinos always have the edge above gamblers, the wish to win will always prompt you to making this sort of analysis just to see if you stand at an advantage above the bookmakers or the casinos. Using past event to even predict future occurrence is not something that theoretically might seems feasible but in reality might not yield the expected outcome as you might presume.

I treat casino games and sports betting differently. With sports betting, I actually put in time and effort when picking a team. It’s not like casino games where the house edge is just sitting there, laughing at you.

Sports betting is more challenging, but if you’re aiming to win big, I’d focus on that. At least there’s a chance to be profitable in the long run unlike casino games, where the odds are basically designed to eat your wallet.

I’m sure regular sports bettors know exactly what I mean. 

[YOSHIE]

Do you believe that the gambler's fallacy is not a fallacy at all?

Broadly speaking and visual casinos there are no theories or practices that can be suitable for all types of games including roulette, we can deceive ourselves, casinos have no clockwise so that people forget When they were, Roulette had an understanding of an unrealistic level of all events that occurred to stand alone and single even though there were theories and practices that were seen.

This means that the mistakes that occur in the roulette gambling round as far as I know are caused by what is called "Gamber's Fallacy," This means that people often think in the results of the past can be influenced by probability in the future, in the theory of players mistakenly thinking If the red wana appears in several rounds they will think the next round is sure to be black, the practice is not so in every round of roulette as far as I know is independent with each other, the meaning of each round remains the same.

[kotajikikox]

So, which one do people interested? from my observation, almost all people like to gamble with random outcome because when they lose, they always complain the casino or provider already set up the outcome.

Now why people are complain even the outcome is random?

People obviously do not want it to be random because if something is random then it means that you can't find a pattern you can follow. But if the machine is actually dependent to previous rounds then it means we can probably figure out easily when red or black will come out. We can follow streaks and assume what possibly could be next. Unfortunately, that is just wrong. Casino games are random. That is it. No need to complicate it more than it is.