Gambler's fallacy, what do you think?

[seoincorporation]

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.

[Mist]

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

[needFREElunch]

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.

[koshgel]

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

[Wendigo]

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  

[futureofbitcoin]

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  

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.

[Ingatqhvq]

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  

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.
 

[EvilPanda]

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  

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.

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.

[XinXan]

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  

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.

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.

[EvilPanda]

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  

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.

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.

[XinXan]

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  

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.

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.

[Wendigo]

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?

[shanem]

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.

[GannickusX]

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?

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

[Phildo]

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  

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.

[Phildo]

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.

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.

[funtotry]

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  

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.
 

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.

[GannickusX]

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  

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.
 

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

[Phildo]

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  

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.
 

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.

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).

[funtotry]

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  

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.
 

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.

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