The Gambler's Fallacy (The key to unbiased gambling)

[Aero Blue]

What is the Gambler's Fallacy?

Wikipedia has an awesome ELI 5:

"Gambler’s fallacy arises out of a belief in the law of small numbers, or the erroneous belief that small samples must be representative of the larger population. According to the fallacy, “streaks” must eventually even out in order to be representative." - Wikipedia Page


A simple example:

I see people fall victim to this train of thought so often, and a lot of the times it's the reason they fail at gambling. Here is a common example that I see around here a lot:

     - Most people can agree that if you flip a coin, it's 50/50 for heads or tails respectively.

     - Now, take this scenario: "You lose 20 coin flips in a row, what are your odds to win the next one?"

If you think that your odds are any different than 50/50 for the 21st coin flip, then you have fallen victim to this fallacy.

Individually it's very easy to understand the odds for one event, but once you introduce more data it gets a lot harder to tell.


Why does it matter?

Humans are naturally very bad at gambling, mainly because we suffer from many biases that feed off of each other.

Noticing these biases and false ways of thinking can help you make better decisions. You can play smarter and be more comfortable with events out of your control. It's also just good practice (cognitive thinking skills) which you can then use in any other aspect of your life.


Using this to your advantage

Now how exactly can you use this to your advantage? While understanding this won't make you the luckiest man alive, it can help you avoid making rash decisions based on flawed logic. Always try to constantly remind yourself that each "event" is independent of the next or previous, our brain always try to find patterns in things (regardless of whether one actually exists). Practicing this mode of thought can drastically improve your perspective and mood when gambling.


Further explanation

If you are still interested in learning more, Brian Keng has an awesome, in-depth explanation (including the mathematics and psychology behind it): http://bjlkeng.github.io/posts/gamblers-fallacy-and-the-law-of-small-numbers/

I find this stuff absolutely fascinating so please let me know if you would like more of these "informative" posts. I put a lot of time into writing this, so I hope it helps a few people out!

[1714624157]

1714624157

[1714624157]

1714624157

[DarkDays]

What makes you say that humans are very bad at gambling?

Throughout our evolution, we as a species have had to make several extremely risky gambles that have paid off, I wouldn't say that we're bad at gambling.

We had to risk crossing the oceans to find new lands, we had to risk overthrowing and electing certain leaders and we've had to wage wars we might not have won.

We're definitely not bad at gambling.

[Oilacris]

We're definitely not bad at gambling.

He might not able to see it yet he do generalize in all sorts of things when it comes to gambling.Even on the simplest decision

in life do correspond some sort of gamble which we would really need up to make such selection into things.

[Aero Blue]

We're definitely not bad at gambling.

He might not able to see it yet he do generalize in all sorts of things when it comes to gambling.Even on the simplest decision

in life do correspond some sort of gamble which we would really need up to make such selection into things.

False, humans are awful at gambling: it’s a scientific fact whether you like it or not. It’s the reason casinos do so well and why the casino business is a billion dollar industry. Here is one of many huge articles containing numerous studies highlighting the psychology behind gambling.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858640/

[YuginKadoya]

Humans are naturally very bad at gambling, mainly because we suffer from many biases that feed off of each other.

Noticing these biases and false ways of thinking can help you make better decisions. You can play smarter and be more comfortable with events out of your control. It's also just good practice (cognitive thinking skills) which you can then use in any other aspect of your life.

In my opinion Gambling really is the one that is Bad for humans, If gambling is not introduced in the first place then there is not a single soul that would learn about gambling, There are no humans that would definitely lose on it, be addicted to it and be depressed by it, But I guess there are players that are playing smarter but smarter in their decisions in minimizing their losses by getting an amount that they would naturally lose, Or it is OK with them, I think decision is the key here in when to stop in playing, And you can not control the outcome of the game the house always win and the outcome will be at random, I can say this because I experience it first hand.

[DoublerHunter]

I do not agree that humans are bad in gambling but I strongly believed that it is a willingness to lose. There's a bunch of explanation that all gamblers types and I had seen hundreds of discussions and I also experienced how gambling it works but I did not feel that all gambling industries are evil or self-destructive. It is in your self how you control it and the responsible budget, the activity can be fun and rewarding. At least 4 times a week that would be better.

[angel55]

We're definitely not bad at gambling.

He might not able to see it yet he do generalize in all sorts of things when it comes to gambling.Even on the simplest decision

in life do correspond some sort of gamble which we would really need up to make such selection into things.

False, humans are awful at gambling: it’s a scientific fact whether you like it or not. It’s the reason casinos do so well and why the casino business is a billion dollar industry. Here is one of many huge articles containing numerous studies highlighting the psychology behind gambling.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858640/

There are different types of gambling.  Gambling on something like slots or roulette takes zero skill and is purely luck.  The odds are obviously against you are the game wouldn't be there in the first place, over the longrun you will end up with a negative balance if you play enough games.

[Aero Blue]

I do not agree that humans are bad in gambling but I strongly believed that it is a willingness to lose. There's a bunch of explanation that all gamblers types and I had seen hundreds of discussions and I also experienced how gambling it works but I did not feel that all gambling industries are evil or self-destructive. It is in your self how you control it and the responsible budget, the activity can be fun and rewarding. At least 4 times a week that would be better.

Yea I definitely agree with you, probably using the word "bad" wasn't the best to describe my point. I don't think that gambling is evil, however it can become self-destructive very easily through addiction. It's like alcohol though, everything in moderation. And I completely agree with your last point: gambling is purely a form of entertainment.

[Patatas]

A very interesting read indeed. Love the breakdown on github as well. The Gambler's Fallacy is well known and there are books, movies, shows based on it.

What makes you say that humans are very bad at gambling?

How many humans do you personally know who are good at gambling? Like do the math and you wouldn't be surprised what is the ratio of good gamblers compared to bad gamblers.

[Aero Blue]

A very interesting read indeed. Love the breakdown on github as well. The Gambler's Fallacy is well known and there are books, movies, shows based on it.

What makes you say that humans are very bad at gambling?

How many humans do you personally know who are good at gambling? Like do the math and you wouldn't be surprised what is the ratio of good gamblers compared to bad gamblers.

Thank you! I find this stuff fascinating, originally got into it after getting into an argument with a friend over win streaks in a video game. I still do this all the time, but at least I am aware I am doing it so I can alter my thinking.

As for the "humans are bad at gambling" thing:

It was a bit of an over-generalization, what I really meant was that humans suffer from many biases, making success extremely hard. But to be clear: "There is no good gambling", I think it's more along the lines of "smart" gambling. Meaning that you can't change the odds, but you can be aware of them and limit yourself accordingly.

My point being that "smart" gambling has nothing to do with winning or losing, but more with how you think about it.

[adzino]

Yeah, nice explanation on gamblers fallacy. But I would still just like to add few more minor details. Gambler Fallacy is a form of "hope" for most gamblers. When playing heads or tails, if a user bets on heads but keeps on flipping tails, then he has a high hope (Gamblers Fallacy) of flipping a tail on next bet even though the odds of flipping a tail is still the same.
I would just like to disagree with the point were you said "Humans are the worst gamblers". In reality, we are actually one of the best gamblers.

[FFrankie]

Assuming that the games are probably fair, the streaks but law of probability eventually  have to even out. You are just as likely to lose 10 in a row than to win 10 in a row assuming that odds are 50-50. I dont understand how that is a fallacy can anyone help me understand why it is wrong to think?

[Aero Blue]

Assuming that the games are probably fair, the streaks but law of probability eventually  have to even out. You are just as likely to lose 10 in a row than to win 10 in a row assuming that odds are 50-50. I dont understand how that is a fallacy can anyone help me understand why it is wrong to think?

The "streaks have to even out" that you call "law of probability" is actually known as the "law of small numbers" which is the whole fallacy that I am speaking of. I described the possible benefits in the "Using this to your advantage" section, however I think an example would probably help since I didn't explain it that well.

Another helpful phrase: "A part is not representative of the whole"


Here is an example of a common "situation" gamblers find themselves in (this is what I've experienced myself and see happen all the time):

     > Let's say that you flip a coin 10 times, betting tails each time and losing to heads.

     > While the odds don't change on the next coinflip, you still feel like it's more likely.

     > With this flawed thinking, let's say you bet 2x more than you normally would: because the odds are better right?

     > Then you hit another heads, and you're out of money.

This isn't really the best example, but often times we bet more based on this flawed thinking that the odds are better. However, it's important to realize that we are even subconsciously biased and we tend to follow patterns even though we don't realize it.


I was trying to find a website I remember visiting a while ago that was interactive and demonstrated some of these biases, but now I can't find it

Edit: found it

[jhongzjhong]

This is a very good idea and not bias on us gamblers, we become bad in gambling into other eyes because they know that gambling might get you addicted gamblers if you don't know how to handle with it perhaps better to quit in gambling. One of the best aspects of gambling addiction is to chase profit on gambling which is a very bad idea. Gamble that you can afford and enjoy every moment that you are in gambling site because it's a cool and wise move.

[Aero Blue]

This is a very good idea and not bias on us gamblers, we become bad in gambling into other eyes because they know that gambling might get you addicted gamblers if you don't know how to handle with it perhaps better to quit in gambling. One of the best aspects of gambling addiction is to chase profit on gambling which is a very bad idea. Gamble that you can afford and enjoy every moment that you are in gambling site because it's a cool and wise move.

Very true, I think another important thing to realize (especially for non-gamblers) is that it's never as easy as it sounds. People always tell you to "cash out" and then laugh when you lose, but then they do the exact same thing. The psychological tricks our minds play on us can cloud our judgement very easily.

But I completely agree with you about "don't gamble what you can't afford", I think most people on BT (that I've heard from so far) view gambling as more of a form of entertainment: which I believe is the correct and best way to look at it. And as the old adage goes: "never chase the dragon".

[Hypnosis00]

This is a very good idea and not bias on us gamblers, we become bad in gambling into other eyes because they know that gambling might get you addicted gamblers if you don't know how to handle with it perhaps better to quit in gambling. One of the best aspects of gambling addiction is to chase profit on gambling which is a very bad idea. Gamble that you can afford and enjoy every moment that you are in gambling site because it's a cool and wise move.

Very true, I think another important thing to realize (especially for non-gamblers) is that it's never as easy as it sounds. People always tell you to "cash out" and then laugh when you lose, but then they do the exact same thing. The psychological tricks our minds play on us can cloud our judgement very easily.

But I completely agree with you about "don't gamble what you can't afford", I think most people on BT (that I've heard from so far) view gambling as more of a form of entertainment: which I believe is the correct and best way to look at it. And as the old adage goes: "never chase the dragon".

Gambling will never be existed if owners never sees any potentiality that it will grow and even get profitable.
Now, if if we think that gambling isn't good supposedly the government never allow it to be presented in the community but they are, this simply means that gambling is legal. Those people get addicted in gambling is not because of this, but it is their choice to be like that.

[qwertyup23]

We're definitely not bad at gambling.

He might not able to see it yet he do generalize in all sorts of things when it comes to gambling.Even on the simplest decision

in life do correspond some sort of gamble which we would really need up to make such selection into things.

False, humans are awful at gambling: it’s a scientific fact whether you like it or not. It’s the reason casinos do so well and why the casino business is a billion dollar industry. Here is one of many huge articles containing numerous studies highlighting the psychology behind gambling.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858640/

This is a good read and a nice article which composed of explaining the psychology behind gambling. But what makes gambling contagious and dangerous at the same time is the addiction and satisfaction that we garner especially when we experience a winning streak in the game. This creates an biased impression that gambling may be favorable to you, resulting to a continuous betting of your money. From this experience, you would deem to think that every bet that you make will garner you returns of cash.

That is where the problem exists. When you have that kind of mindset, it would slowly cloud your judgement and decision making skills which would aggravate your situation into losing your cash. After that, it would cascade thinking that the only way to overcome your losses is to gamble again. From this alone, this creates an endless cycle wherein you gamble and gamble until every cash is drained.

[Dreamchaser21]

This is a very good idea and not bias on us gamblers, we become bad in gambling into other eyes because they know that gambling might get you addicted gamblers if you don't know how to handle with it perhaps better to quit in gambling. One of the best aspects of gambling addiction is to chase profit on gambling which is a very bad idea. Gamble that you can afford and enjoy every moment that you are in gambling site because it's a cool and wise move.

This is the thinking of ordinary people who don’t understand gambling, they see people who goes to casinos are bad but we can’t deny the fact that a lot of gamblers becomes addict as well. Gamble excess money, stay fit and always have fun. Gambling is not always take profit, its bad if you do bad decisions and take more greed.

[maydna]

This is a very good idea and not bias on us gamblers, we become bad in gambling into other eyes because they know that gambling might get you addicted gamblers if you don't know how to handle with it perhaps better to quit in gambling. One of the best aspects of gambling addiction is to chase profit on gambling which is a very bad idea. Gamble that you can afford and enjoy every moment that you are in gambling site because it's a cool and wise move.

I don't think that chasing the money will be the best aspects of gambling addiction because if we thoughts behind that, we have a big chance to miss all of the money. Besides that, we know that we cannot recover the loss of the money and no matter we try hard, we still hard to get the money's back. So when you still have time to quit, make sure you can quit gambling as soon as possible and don't wait until your money reduces too big.

[Aero Blue]

What makes you say that humans are very bad at gambling?

Throughout our evolution, we as a species have had to make several extremely risky gambles that have paid off, I wouldn't say that we're bad at gambling.

We had to risk crossing the oceans to find new lands, we had to risk overthrowing and electing certain leaders and we've had to wage wars we might not have won.

We're definitely not bad at gambling.

I agree, we are not that bad at gambling, I think the things that make it bad is when the gambler got addicted and don’t know how to control himself at the game and that they forgot about the plan.

I don't really think it's fair to compare slots or dice to "evolutionary gambling", they are just to completely different things. Psychologically we are awful at games of chance, and there are a lot of reasons for this. A lot of it has to do with the fact that we aren't computers, we can't calculate risk and statistical outcomes very easily, and to relate back to evolutionary "gambles": these were fairly simple. There was no 1 in 200 million odds to win the lottery, it was more like 20 men vs 5. I think this is the main reason we fail at gambling, it's very hard for us to understand the mathematics behind it all.

[fortunecrypto]

We're definitely not bad at gambling.

He might not able to see it yet he do generalize in all sorts of things when it comes to gambling.Even on the simplest decision

in life do correspond some sort of gamble which we would really need up to make such selection into things.

False, humans are awful at gambling: it’s a scientific fact whether you like it or not. It’s the reason casinos do so well and why the casino business is a billion dollar industry. Here is one of many huge articles containing numerous studies highlighting the psychology behind gambling.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858640/

I agree, you cannot bring the house down however you try, there are few that are going to be lucky in a game of gambling in a particular day but the majority will have bad luck playing games, our government is right to create more casinos in our country it's a good revenue-generating venture

[Fredomago]

What makes you say that humans are very bad at gambling?

Throughout our evolution, we as a species have had to make several extremely risky gambles that have paid off, I wouldn't say that we're bad at gambling.

We had to risk crossing the oceans to find new lands, we had to risk overthrowing and electing certain leaders and we've had to wage wars we might not have won.

We're definitely not bad at gambling.

I agree, we are not that bad at gambling, I think the things that make it bad is when the gambler got addicted and don’t know how to control himself at the game and that they forgot about the plan.

Being too emotional leads the gamblers to lose more, as they keep following emotions from game after game that they've played, if you can hold your
emotions and deal with this activity with good form and right attitude you'll not going to find yourself being too much addicted it will not ruin your life and you can easily go and move forward every time you deal with this activities whatever the results.

[Patatas]

Assuming that the games are probably fair, the streaks but law of probability eventually  have to even out. You are just as likely to lose 10 in a row than to win 10 in a row assuming that odds are 50-50. I dont understand how that is a fallacy can anyone help me understand why it is wrong to think?

Probably fair? We shouldn't be using that term at all. You know it, games are provably fair and not probably. The entire fallacy wouldn't make sense if a player is betting on a rigged site. On provability fair games, the probability may or may not even out.

[Aero Blue]

This is a very good idea and not bias on us gamblers, we become bad in gambling into other eyes because they know that gambling might get you addicted gamblers if you don't know how to handle with it perhaps better to quit in gambling. One of the best aspects of gambling addiction is to chase profit on gambling which is a very bad idea. Gamble that you can afford and enjoy every moment that you are in gambling site because it's a cool and wise move.

This is the thinking of ordinary people who don’t understand gambling, they see people who goes to casinos are bad but we can’t deny the fact that a lot of gamblers becomes addict as well. Gamble excess money, stay fit and always have fun. Gambling is not always take profit, its bad if you do bad decisions and take more greed.

Exactly. When it all comes down to it, gambling is just a form of entertainment. Just like spending $20 to go see a movie, some people prefer to play a hand or two. If you do everything in moderation then you will never have an issue.

[yvesp110]

This is a very good idea and not bias on us gamblers, we become bad in gambling into other eyes because they know that gambling might get you addicted gamblers if you don't know how to handle with it perhaps better to quit in gambling. One of the best aspects of gambling addiction is to chase profit on gambling which is a very bad idea. Gamble that you can afford and enjoy every moment that you are in gambling site because it's a cool and wise move.

This is the thinking of ordinary people who don’t understand gambling, they see people who goes to casinos are bad but we can’t deny the fact that a lot of gamblers becomes addict as well. Gamble excess money, stay fit and always have fun. Gambling is not always take profit, its bad if you do bad decisions and take more greed.

Exactly. When it all comes down to it, gambling is just a form of entertainment. Just like spending $20 to go see a movie, some people prefer to play a hand or two. If you do everything in moderation then you will never have an issue.

Exactly, this reminds me of the physiocratic fallacy as well. Anyways, it is well said that gambling is just investment for entertainment. It is better to enjoy the game rather than expecting for money in the game. You might get occasional money as well but on the average, a normal man lose more than he win. In sports gambling, you might make some money but I am not really sure about poker and others.

[Saint-loup]

What is the Gambler's Fallacy?

Wikipedia has an awesome ELI 5:

"Gambler’s fallacy arises out of a belief in the law of small numbers, or the erroneous belief that small samples must be representative of the larger population. According to the fallacy, “streaks” must eventually even out in order to be representative." - Wikipedia Page


A simple example:

I see people fall victim to this train of thought so often, and a lot of the times it's the reason they fail at gambling. Here is a common example that I see around here a lot:

     - Most people can agree that if you flip a coin, it's 50/50 for heads or tails respectively.

     - Now, take this scenario: "You lose 20 coin flips in a row, what are your odds to win the next one?"

If you think that your odds are any different than 50/50 for the 21st coin flip, then you have fallen victim to this fallacy.

Individually it's very easy to understand the odds for one event, but once you introduce more data it gets a lot harder to tell.

I disagree with that if you bet 20times on the same side and you lose, the odds are not the same for the next flip (if the flips are really random).
It doesn't mean you'll have 100% chances to win but you'll have more than 50% chances to win...

Assuming that the games are probably fair, the streaks but law of probability eventually  have to even out. You are just as likely to lose 10 in a row than to win 10 in a row assuming that odds are 50-50. I dont understand how that is a fallacy can anyone help me understand why it is wrong to think?

It's the idea that the previous results change the odds on the next. In your mind if 9 are tails in a row you think it just can't be tails in a row that would be insane and think of it as a 1/10 result and 10% chance but it's really 50/50.

How do you explain that then?


On 50 000 runs of 32 flips, 0 runs gave less than 6 heads. But more than 7000 gave exactly 16 heads and 16 tails...
So you have more chances to get 9 tails and 1heads or 5tails and 5heads?

[Aero Blue]

...

I disagree with that if you bet 20times on the same side and you lose, the odds are not the same for the next flip (if the flips are really random).
It doesn't mean you'll have 100% chances to win but you'll have more than 50% chances to win...

The odds don't change at all based on streaks, because people often think parts need to be representative of the whole leading to the erroneous belief that streaks must even out.

You can disagree all you want, but it's a statistical fact. You are more inclined to think that the odds are different because your brain tries to play tricks on you.

[Saint-loup]

...

I disagree with that if you bet 20times on the same side and you lose, the odds are not the same for the next flip (if the flips are really random).
It doesn't mean you'll have 100% chances to win but you'll have more than 50% chances to win...

The odds don't change at all based on streaks, because people often think parts need to be representative of the whole leading to the erroneous belief that streaks must even out.

You can disagree all you want, but it's a statistical fact. You are more inclined to think that the odds are different because your brain tries to play tricks on you.

No the gaussian law says that the expected probability tends to be respected if the game is really random.
Look at the chart above.

[Aero Blue]

...

I disagree with that if you bet 20times on the same side and you lose, the odds are not the same for the next flip (if the flips are really random).
It doesn't mean you'll have 100% chances to win but you'll have more than 50% chances to win...

The odds don't change at all based on streaks, because people often think parts need to be representative of the whole leading to the erroneous belief that streaks must even out.

You can disagree all you want, but it's a statistical fact. You are more inclined to think that the odds are different because your brain tries to play tricks on you.

No the gaussian law says that the expected probability tends to be respected if the game is really random.
Look at the chart above.

That is again, false. I think you are not realizing the independence of events, here is a good explanation:

"While a run of five heads has a probability of 1/32 = 0.03125 (a little over 3%), the misunderstanding lies in not realizing that this is the case only before the first coin is tossed. After the first four tosses, the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are at that point equal to 1 (100%). The reasoning that it is more likely that a fifth toss is more likely to be tails because the previous four tosses were heads, with a run of luck in the past influencing the odds in the future, forms the basis of the fallacy."

To add on a little more, I think you are speaking of statistical regularity "or a notion in statistics and probability theory that random events exhibit regularity when repeated enough times or that enough sufficiently similar random events exhibit regularity. It is an umbrella term that covers the law of large numbers, all central limit theorems and ergodic theorems."

It is commonly confused with the gambler's fallacy:

"This phenomenon should not be confused with the gambler's fallacy, because regularity only refers to the (possibly very) long run. The gambler's fallacy does not apply to statistical regularity because the latter considers the whole rather than individual cases."

[buwaytress]

Which is why, when I am on a joy ride of martingale, I don't think of streaks nor do I think of # of bets, nor do I think of changing my targets as I get closer to them. I generally have a capital, a fixed target, and then I go on the joy ride, martingaling, and then allowing 1 of 2 things to happen: I bust because that maximum losing streak has hit me, or I achieve my target and get in profit.

I've been asked about the latter and yes I could simply get the same result in 1 bet (and probability is the same!) but this way, I gain more wagering amounts, which generally gives me some edge later.

The point is, I know that no matter how many times I bust, doesn't affect my probability for the next round. And conversely, I could always get in profit and never bust, because I will never gamble enough to achieve a large enough sample =)

[Aero Blue]

Which is why, when I am on a joy ride of martingale, I don't think of streaks nor do I think of # of bets, nor do I think of changing my targets as I get closer to them. I generally have a capital, a fixed target, and then I go on the joy ride, martingaling, and then allowing 1 of 2 things to happen: I bust because that maximum losing streak has hit me, or I achieve my target and get in profit.

I've been asked about the latter and yes I could simply get the same result in 1 bet (and probability is the same!) but this way, I gain more wagering amounts, which generally gives me some edge later.

The point is, I know that no matter how many times I bust, doesn't affect my probability for the next round. And conversely, I could always get in profit and never bust, because I will never gamble enough to achieve a large enough sample =)

Employing betting strategies (such as a martingale) cannot alter the odds in the long run. However, as you said: you are never going to gamble enough to achieve a large enough sample. You are legitimately the first person I have met who understands martingale and the odds, but still uses the method. Good luck on those joy rides

[buwaytress]

Which is why, when I am on a joy ride of martingale, I don't think of streaks nor do I think of # of bets, nor do I think of changing my targets as I get closer to them. I generally have a capital, a fixed target, and then I go on the joy ride, martingaling, and then allowing 1 of 2 things to happen: I bust because that maximum losing streak has hit me, or I achieve my target and get in profit.

I've been asked about the latter and yes I could simply get the same result in 1 bet (and probability is the same!) but this way, I gain more wagering amounts, which generally gives me some edge later.

The point is, I know that no matter how many times I bust, doesn't affect my probability for the next round. And conversely, I could always get in profit and never bust, because I will never gamble enough to achieve a large enough sample =)

Employing betting strategies (such as a martingale) cannot alter the odds in the long run. However, as you said: you are never going to gamble enough to achieve a large enough sample. You are legitimately the first person I have met who understands martingale and the odds, but still uses the method. Good luck on those joy rides

Why thank you! Ever since bitcoin dice came around along with the ability to roll millions of rolls in weeks, I've been enjoying martingaling. Of course, lower house edges, microbetting, all these allow for 20+ streaks that regular roulette never could. Amazing if you think about what a relatively simple script and a new currency could do to change things up! Oh and racking up wagering amounts along the way.

It's all for fun in the end, and it has been fun thus far, and we really need to come to terms (and in my case, happily embrace it) with what it is to really enjoy it =D

Thanks and see you on the other side of gambler's fallacy

[Botnake]

Humans are naturally very bad at gambling, mainly because we suffer from many biases that feed off of each other.

This is somehow true, we have to be aware and accept this reality so we can do the right action in gambling.
When we gamble with our emotion, that will make us fail, we should learn to control our emotion and always focus on the method and learn to correctly implement it throughout the game. Being realistic is always necessary as this risk can only be seen if we are realistic.

[jake zyrus]

I somehow agree with what you said that "Humans are naturally very bad at gambling". I think what the op is trying to say is that, we are naturally bad at gambling but through learning and practices, we improve and become better. We don't actually born good at gambling. We learn and improve through process. And during that process, we also learn to make better decision to avoid losses.

[davis196]

I understand this theory but,to oversimplify things a little bit,the more you gamble the bigger the chance of losing everything.
What differentiates a good gambler from a bad gambler is the fact that the good gambler knows when to stop,while the bad gambler just wants more and more,and eventually he loses everything.
It's all about self-control and psychology,not mathematics.

[iMark]

We're definitely not bad at gambling.

He might not able to see it yet he do generalize in all sorts of things when it comes to gambling.Even on the simplest decision

in life do correspond some sort of gamble which we would really need up to make such selection into things.

Yeah we can't generalize that we are bad at gambling just because of the possibility of bias happening in gambling. many players are profit in gambling just by guessing, and not always gambling results are biased, poker can guarantee profits if you are skilled, sport betting does not give big chance of losses because we are able to analyze the match, the point is we are not always bad at gambling

[Ryker1]

I understand this theory but,to oversimplify things a little bit,the more you gamble the bigger the chance of losing everything.
What differentiates a good gambler from a bad gambler is the fact that the good gambler knows when to stop,while the bad gambler just wants more and more,and eventually he loses everything.
It's all about self-control and psychology,not mathematics.

Well, only greed people will do that. Once you are a gambler just always avoiding the matter that you can't control your self and finding more and more profit and eventually keep losing because of chasing profit and that is a bad gambler. The fact that that kind of attitude makes them self worst if they are turning into addiction in gambling. Indeed, just be a good gambler and that is the real fallacy if you are that kind of gambler not gambling itself.

[Aero Blue]

I understand this theory but,to oversimplify things a little bit,the more you gamble the bigger the chance of losing everything.
What differentiates a good gambler from a bad gambler is the fact that the good gambler knows when to stop,while the bad gambler just wants more and more,and eventually he loses everything.
It's all about self-control and psychology,not mathematics.

Well, only greed people will do that. Once you are a gambler just always avoiding the matter that you can't control your self and finding more and more profit and eventually keep losing because of chasing profit and that is a bad gambler. The fact that that kind of attitude makes them self worst if they are turning into addiction in gambling. Indeed, just be a good gambler and that is the real fallacy if you are that kind of gambler not gambling itself.

One piece of advice that I can offer in order make "unbiased gambling" easier, is to acknowledge the fact that the money you put in is already gone. For example, if I ever deposit: I imagine that I no longer own the money anymore, usually it makes it easier to accept loses if you already accept it.

[Ucy]

Well, we fail at gambling because we do not consider the fact that something we do not understand cannot be predicted. This is probably why we fail at predicting which side will show when a coin is flipped...  we simply don't know the factors that make a coin fall on a particular side and not the other.
However we are good at predicting things without too much randomness and things with patterns we are familiar with.   Examples of things we can predict a little bit are humans/animals behaviour and other non random things. This explains why human to human gambling is more predictable and considered skill-based gambling than throwing coin randomly

[Saint-loup]

None of the previous results matter, in that moment the heads or tails is still just 50/50, it doesn't matter what previous results were, the graph doesn't matter, the odds of every single flip regardless was 50/50, this is where the human mind wands to throw that out the window.

...

I disagree with that if you bet 20times on the same side and you lose, the odds are not the same for the next flip (if the flips are really random).
It doesn't mean you'll have 100% chances to win but you'll have more than 50% chances to win...

The odds don't change at all based on streaks, because people often think parts need to be representative of the whole leading to the erroneous belief that streaks must even out.

You can disagree all you want, but it's a statistical fact. You are more inclined to think that the odds are different because your brain tries to play tricks on you.

No the gaussian law says that the expected probability tends to be respected if the game is really random.
Look at the chart above.

That is again, false. I think you are not realizing the independence of events, here is a good explanation:

"While a run of five heads has a probability of 1/32 = 0.03125 (a little over 3%), the misunderstanding lies in not realizing that this is the case only before the first coin is tossed. After the first four tosses, the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are at that point equal to 1 (100%). The reasoning that it is more likely that a fifth toss is more likely to be tails because the previous four tosses were heads, with a run of luck in the past influencing the odds in the future, forms the basis of the fallacy."

I'm sorry but your unsourced statement doesn't prove anything.
According to the statistics you have more chances to get 5heads and 5tails than getting 0heads and 10tails when you flip 10times a coin. Do you agree with that? Yes or no?

According to the same statistics you have more chances to get 1heads and 9tails than getting 0heads and 10tails.
Do you agree with that? Yes or no?

So if you got already 9tails, you have more chances to get a heads than getting a tails because there are statistically more chances to get 1heads and 9tails in a series of 10 flips than getting 0heads and 10tails.
This is as simple as that.

[mirakal]

What differentiates a good gambler from a bad gambler is the fact that the good gambler knows when to stop,while the bad gambler just wants more and more,and eventually he loses everything.

If that's what you think then you are  not thinking of becoming a successful gambler.
A good gambler for me knows how to win, and winning is not easy so factors you've mentioned are possess by a good gamblers.

It's all about self-control and psychology,not mathematics.

Both are important if you think of winning, some people just don't treat gambling as a complete entertainment, some are ambitious of winning.

[maydna]

I understand this theory but,to oversimplify things a little bit,the more you gamble the bigger the chance of losing everything.
What differentiates a good gambler from a bad gambler is the fact that the good gambler knows when to stop,while the bad gambler just wants more and more,and eventually he loses everything.
It's all about self-control and psychology,not mathematics.

Well, only greed people will do that. Once you are a gambler just always avoiding the matter that you can't control your self and finding more and more profit and eventually keep losing because of chasing profit and that is a bad gambler. The fact that that kind of attitude makes them self worst if they are turning into addiction in gambling. Indeed, just be a good gambler and that is the real fallacy if you are that kind of gambler not gambling itself.

One piece of advice that I can offer in order make "unbiased gambling" easier, is to acknowledge the fact that the money you put in is already gone. For example, if I ever deposit: I imagine that I no longer own the money anymore, usually it makes it easier to accept loses if you already accept it.

But the problem, not all gamblers realize about the fact, especially when they are entering the gambling places. They forget to think about that because they enjoy the game, they spend the money, and that will make their money's gone. There is nothing we can do when we lose the money, and we could only accept and forget while we can come back in other days to play the game. That is why we need to make a limit on playing gambling.

[omonuyak]

What differentiates a good gambler from a bad gambler is the fact that the good gambler knows when to stop,while the bad gambler just wants more and more,and eventually he loses everything.

If that's what you think then you are  not thinking of becoming a successful gambler.
A good gambler for me knows how to win, and winning is not easy so factors you've mentioned are possess by a good gamblers.

It's all about self-control and psychology,not mathematics.

Both are important if you think of winning, some people just don't treat gambling as a complete entertainment, some are ambitious of winning.

Many people gambling, do it to  win and even if they are gambling for fun? It is in our intentions to win. My advice is for us to gamble with fun of it but desired to win in all our betting. If we are to continue in gambling we should try to remain positive and also motivate ourselves by making profit from our gambling.

[Aero Blue]

It does not matter the least if you are gambling for fun or pleasure. The end is always a win and a loss and many do prefer and worry about the win. The intensity of winning however is not really high when it comes to someone who is looking for fun. A big number of people do it to make quick money. Uncertainty is an inbuilt trait in gambling and to me, it is a risky investment. 

Yea I feel like a lot of people are just hoping for that extra $50, real quick. Thinking it's only once and that they'll win because they are lucky. In reality gambling isn't an investment, it's a form of entertainment. It's only entertainment if you look at it that way though, otherwise you will end up feeling frustrated and extremely disappointed in yourself. Despite the "only gamble what you are willing to lose" phrase, people still gamble ending up mad because they lost money.

[Questat]

It does not matter the least if you are gambling for fun or pleasure. The end is always a win and a loss and many do prefer and worry about the win. The intensity of winning however is not really high when it comes to someone who is looking for fun. A big number of people do it to make quick money. Uncertainty is an inbuilt trait in gambling and to me, it is a risky investment. 

Yea I feel like a lot of people are just hoping for that extra $50, real quick. Thinking it's only once and that they'll win because they are lucky. In reality gambling isn't an investment, it's a form of entertainment. It's only entertainment if you look at it that way though, otherwise you will end up feeling frustrated and extremely disappointed in yourself. Despite the "only gamble what you are willing to lose" phrase, people still gamble ending up mad because they lost money.

That is depending on your skills, if you have the skills, you can consider gambling as a form of investment, a gambler would only become successful if he can survive and be profitable in the long term. But of course, this does not count on roulette, dice, and other forms of luck based games as that house edge matters a lot in the run. One can become a successful sports bettors and that's appropriate to call an investment for him.

[Ucy]

It does not matter the least if you are gambling for fun or pleasure. The end is always a win and a loss and many do prefer and worry about the win. The intensity of winning however is not really high when it comes to someone who is looking for fun. A big number of people do it to make quick money. Uncertainty is an inbuilt trait in gambling and to me, it is a risky investment. 

Yea I feel like a lot of people are just hoping for that extra $50, real quick. Thinking it's only once and that they'll win because they are lucky. In reality gambling isn't an investment, it's a form of entertainment. It's only entertainment if you look at it that way though, otherwise you will end up feeling frustrated and extremely disappointed in yourself. Despite the "only gamble what you are willing to lose" phrase, people still gamble ending up mad because they lost money.

That is depending on your skills, if you have the skills, you can consider gambling as a form of investment, a gambler would only become successful if he can survive and be profitable in the long term. But of course, this does not count on roulette, dice, and other forms of luck based games as that house edge matters a lot in the run. One can become a successful sports bettors and that's appropriate to call an investment for him.

Just curious, have you seen skill-based gambers who earn consistently from skill-based gambling?
If you are a regular gambler and pay your bills through gambling, kindly reply to this post so we can learn how this is possible.

[Altero]

It does not matter the least if you are gambling for fun or pleasure. The end is always a win and a loss and many do prefer and worry about the win. The intensity of winning however is not really high when it comes to someone who is looking for fun. A big number of people do it to make quick money. Uncertainty is an inbuilt trait in gambling and to me, it is a risky investment. 

Yea I feel like a lot of people are just hoping for that extra $50, real quick. Thinking it's only once and that they'll win because they are lucky. In reality gambling isn't an investment, it's a form of entertainment. It's only entertainment if you look at it that way though, otherwise you will end up feeling frustrated and extremely disappointed in yourself. Despite the "only gamble what you are willing to lose" phrase, people still gamble ending up mad because they lost money.

Gambling is more of an entertainment that needs to be enjoyed and make fun. Even if you're lucky or not the time you gamble because you lose, do not take it seriously. You won't be mad in the first place if you only gamble the amount you can afford to lose. Gambling isn't bad in general, as long as we only gamble for fun.

We can blame those people who consider this a sort of living and they are in a casino all-day and gambling isn't doing fun for them but they take it seriously. It actually there is money inside casinos, only if they have skills and deep knowledge in gambling or they have luck though.

[Botnake]

It does not matter the least if you are gambling for fun or pleasure. The end is always a win and a loss and many do prefer and worry about the win. The intensity of winning however is not really high when it comes to someone who is looking for fun. A big number of people do it to make quick money. Uncertainty is an inbuilt trait in gambling and to me, it is a risky investment. 

Yea I feel like a lot of people are just hoping for that extra $50, real quick. Thinking it's only once and that they'll win because they are lucky. In reality gambling isn't an investment, it's a form of entertainment. It's only entertainment if you look at it that way though, otherwise you will end up feeling frustrated and extremely disappointed in yourself. Despite the "only gamble what you are willing to lose" phrase, people still gamble ending up mad because they lost money.

Gambling is more of an entertainment that needs to be enjoyed and make fun. Even if you're lucky or not the time you gamble because you lose, do not take it seriously. You won't be mad in the first place if you only gamble the amount you can afford to lose. Gambling isn't bad in general, as long as we only gamble for fun.

We can blame those people who consider this a sort of living and they are in a casino all-day and gambling isn't doing fun for them but they take it seriously. It actually there is money inside casinos, only if they have skills and deep knowledge in gambling or they have luck though.

We should blame them if they aren't making money yet, they think they can make a living in gambling, that's what you called stupid thinking and that's what makes casino richer.

[ethereumhunter]

It does not matter the least if you are gambling for fun or pleasure. The end is always a win and a loss and many do prefer and worry about the win. The intensity of winning however is not really high when it comes to someone who is looking for fun. A big number of people do it to make quick money. Uncertainty is an inbuilt trait in gambling and to me, it is a risky investment. 

Yea I feel like a lot of people are just hoping for that extra $50, real quick. Thinking it's only once and that they'll win because they are lucky. In reality gambling isn't an investment, it's a form of entertainment. It's only entertainment if you look at it that way though, otherwise you will end up feeling frustrated and extremely disappointed in yourself. Despite the "only gamble what you are willing to lose" phrase, people still gamble ending up mad because they lost money.

Gambling is more of an entertainment that needs to be enjoyed and make fun. Even if you're lucky or not the time you gamble because you lose, do not take it seriously. You won't be mad in the first place if you only gamble the amount you can afford to lose. Gambling isn't bad in general, as long as we only gamble for fun.

We can blame those people who consider this a sort of living and they are in a casino all-day and gambling isn't doing fun for them but they take it seriously. It actually there is money inside casinos, only if they have skills and deep knowledge in gambling or they have luck though.

But I guess they won't listen to us because they will still continue playing gambling no matter if they will lose more money. That is hard to explain to them because all they want to do is make money from gambling. They will play all day long without thinking about the risk, and that is difficult to make a living from gambling.

[deisik]

What makes you say that humans are very bad at gambling?

He obviously refers to gambling as an activity involving playing games based on luck (like dice)

And humans are bad at this type of gambling because they are just bad at probabilities. For example, people easily confuse plausibility for probability, i.e. they erroneously believe that adding more details about something necessarily makes it more probable, while in actuality it only makes it more plausible (read, more easily believable).

Regarding your examples specifically, they are not reflecting the law of small numbers, and I could go so far as to even say they have nothing to do with gambling as such. People became able to cross the oceans after they had discovered the power of the keel. Good luck to you trying to cross an ocean on oars alone (as that would be gambling)

[audaciousbeing]

The part of using things to an advantage by thinking every situation or event is independent of the previous one or the future one is either difficult or impossible to phantom. The reason is simple. There is no way that things are not connected. Even in the mathematical calculation of odds and other strategies of gambling especially the martingale model, its about trend and historical analysis which is what is being relied upon. Now how exactly is a site going to be adjudged fair if only losing streak is what is happening and there is no comparison to what happen in the previous throw since every event is taken independently?

[TheCoinGrabber]

Yes, it's the "it's about to blow" attitude towards lotto that we often see when every time the jackpot is raised. Each time it's not won, people become even more sure it's going to be on the next draw.

I think the only games where previous draws matter is cards since it's being drawn from the same deck. Maybe bingo as well since it's just a race to get the most Xs. Everything else, lotto, dice, roulette, each spin, roll and throw have no relation with each other.

We're definitely not bad at gambling.

We are risk-takers but we are not exactly good at analyzing probability. We are not good with extremely small or large numbers. Adding to your own evolutionary claim, we never had to deal with such numbers in the wild which is why we aren't hardwired to easily understand them. To many hunter-gatherers anything above 20 is "too many".

[omonuyak]

What differentiates a good gambler from a bad gambler is the fact that the good gambler knows when to stop,while the bad gambler just wants more and more,and eventually he loses everything.

If that's what you think then you are  not thinking of becoming a successful gambler.
A good gambler for me knows how to win, and winning is not easy so factors you've mentioned are possess by a good gamblers.

It's all about self-control and psychology,not mathematics.

Both are important if you think of winning, some people just don't treat gambling as a complete entertainment, some are ambitious of winning.

Many people gambling, do it to  win and even if they are gambling for fun? It is in our intentions to win. My advice is for us to gamble with fun of it but desired to win in all our betting. If we are to continue in gambling we should try to remain positive and also motivate ourselves by making profit from our gambling.

It does not matter the least if you are gambling for fun or pleasure. The end is always a win and a loss and many do prefer and worry about the win. The intensity of winning however is not really high when it comes to someone who is looking for fun. A big number of people do it to make quick money. Uncertainty is an inbuilt trait in gambling and to me, it is a risky investment. 

Gambling is investments just that it is a very risky one and since one cannot really win much because of the odd I think we should invest as little as we can so that when you lose you can take it as it is. In the office yesterday during break I began to gambling online in the present of my colleague and when I was losing we began to laugh over it and we find fun in it because the amount involved is small. Investing what you can not really afford to lose is risky taking too high!

[Sharon121212]

I somehow agree with what you said that "Humans are naturally very bad at gambling". I think what the op is trying to say is that, we are naturally bad at gambling but through learning and practices, we improve and become better. We don't actually born good at gambling. We learn and improve through process. And during that process, we also learn to make better decision to avoid losses.

There is no perfection to gambling no matter your years of experience a new guy can come in a get it right while you flop the ways to get gambling perfect this days is by cheating for example hacking system.
While gambling I keep at the back of my mind that the owners of this gambling site never opened the site for them to run at a loss and I would stop feeling as if they owe me or it's my right to win every time

[deisik]

According to the statistics you have more chances to get 5heads and 5tails than getting 0heads and 10tails when you flip 10times a coin. Do you agree with that? Yes or no?

You don't specify one important condition. More specifically, you don't specify the exact order in which we are going to see 5 heads and 5 tails. If we are to see them in an arbitrary order, i.e. just 5 heads and 5 tails in 10 flips, then you are correct. Otherwise, if you actually mean a specific order (like HTHTHTHTHT), then the probability of seeing this sequence is the same as seeing 0 heads and 10 tails in any order (which would always be TTTTTTTTTT, of course) as outcomes are independent of each other. I guess this is the source of your confusion

Or maybe you mean something else

[omonuyak]

"Doubles down on loses" has never been the best way to gamble. I have tried this in both betting and dice but it loses money faster than any other gambling strategies. I think we just need to accept the fact that gambling should be played without putting mind for any strategy as in this it is always easy to win than losing as you only depend on your luck.

[Saint-loup]

According to the statistics you have more chances to get 5heads and 5tails than getting 0heads and 10tails when you flip 10times a coin. Do you agree with that? Yes or no?

You don't specify one important condition. More specifically, you don't specify the exact order in which we are going to see 5 heads and 5 tails. If we are to see them in an arbitrary order, i.e. just 5 heads and 5 tails in 10 flips, then you are correct. Otherwise, if you actually mean a specific order (like HTHTHTHTHT), then the probability of seeing this sequence is the same as seeing 0 heads and 10 tails in any order (which would always be TTTTTTTTTT, of course) as outcomes are independent of each other. I guess this is the source of your confusion

Or maybe you mean something else

Yes I'm talking about observed statistics, not theorical "demonstrations".
So are you really sure HTHTHTHTHT is not more likely to happen than TTTTTTTTTT ? Do you have real statistics about that?
The facts show you're more likely to get 5 heads and 5 tails than getting 0 heads and 10tails, it's not some mathematics from me, it's the facts.

[deisik]

So are you sure HTHTHTHTHT is not more likely to happen than TTTTTTTTTT ? Do you have real statistics about that?

The probabilities are the same

Statistics refer to past data, and technically they can be any, especially if the sample size is small (the infamous law of small numbers). Probabilities, on other hand, refer to future outcomes, i.e. they do not exist for what has already occurred (but they can be obtained from the past data, given a large enough sample). So in terms of probabilities HTHTHTHTHT is as likely as TTTTTTTTTT (or any other combination of heads and tails), at least as long as it is 50/50 for both tails and heads. Simply speaking, it is exactly about mathematics, not actual outcomes (which you seem to imply here by "facts"). Otherwise, the odds are not 50/50. It is an accounting identity of sorts, which you can't possibly get around

I don't understand what this chart means

[Saint-loup]

So are you sure HTHTHTHTHT is not more likely to happen than TTTTTTTTTT ? Do you have real statistics about that?

The probabilities are the same

Statistics refer to past data, and technically they can be any, especially if the sample size is small (the infamous law of small numbers). Probabilities, on other hand, refer to future outcomes, i.e. they do not exist for what has already occurred (but can be obtained from the past data, given large enough sample). So in terms of probabilities HTHTHTHTHT is as likely as TTTTTTTTTT. Simply speaking, it is exactly about mathematics, not actual outcomes (which you seem to mean by "facts" here)

For 4 flips there are 2^4=16 possible combinations
6 have 2heads and 2tails
4 have 1heads and 3tails
4 have 3heads and 1tails
1 has 0heads and 4tails
1 has 4heads and 0tails  

HHHH
HHHT
HHTH
HHTT
HTHH
HTHT
HTTH
HTTT
THHH
THHT
THTH
THTT
TTHH
TTHT
TTTH
TTTT

So if you got already 2heads you have 3chances on 4 to get one tail in the next 2 flips.

HHHH
HHHT
HHTH
HHTT

[deisik]

So if you got already 2heads you have 3chances on 4 to get one tail in the next 2 flips.

HHHH
HHHT
HHTH
HHTT

In the next 2 flips your chances to get 1 tail are the same as to get 1 head and equal to 0.5. You have 4 possible outcomes with 2 of them having 1 tail - HT, TH (the other two being HH and TT). The outcome TT has 2 tails, while its probability is the same as for 2 heads (HH) and equal to 0.25. In other words, 2 tails is a different outcome than 1 tail in 2 flips. Basically, you are trying to exploit the tendency or weakness of human beings to answer a similar but different question, i.e. not the one asked (an easier one, for the record)

You may want to try again

I disagree with that if you bet 20times on the same side and you lose, the odds are not the same for the next flip (if the flips are really random).
It doesn't mean you'll have 100% chances to win but you'll have more than 50% chances to win

You will have a hard time to prove that unless you implicitly assume the outcomes are not independent while the odds are changing in the process

[Saint-loup]

So if you got already 2heads you have 3chances on 4 to get one tail in the next 2 flips.

HHHH
HHHT
HHTH
HHTT

In the next 2 flips your chances to get 1 tail are the same as to get 1 head and equal to 0.5. You have 4 possible outcomes with 2 of them having 1 tail - HT, TH (the other two being HH and TT). The outcome TT has 2 tails, while its probability is the same as for 2 heads (HH) and equal to 0.25. In other words, 2 tails is a different outcome than 1 tail in 2 flips. Basically, you are trying to exploit the tendency or weakness of human beings to answer a similar but different question, i.e. not the one asked (an easier one, for the record)

You may want to try again

  I'm sorry but the question is about gambling here, so I don't know which question you're trying to reply to but there is no reason to eliminate TT here (eliminate by who BTW?) since it's a valid outcome.
I think it's the difference between the(your) theory and the reality. You can change the rules of your theory but not of the reality. In the real life if you get TT you'll win.

I disagree with that if you bet 20times on the same side and you lose, the odds are not the same for the next flip (if the flips are really random).
It doesn't mean you'll have 100% chances to win but you'll have more than 50% chances to win

You will have a hard time to prove that unless you implicitly assume the outcomes are not independent while the odds are changing in the process

I'm sorry but I've already put a chart above. If you don't understand it or don't want to understand it, I can't do more for you.

[deisik]

So if you got already 2heads you have 3chances on 4 to get one tail in the next 2 flips.

HHHH
HHHT
HHTH
HHTT

In the next 2 flips your chances to get 1 tail are the same as to get 1 head and equal to 0.5. You have 4 possible outcomes with 2 of them having 1 tail - HT, TH (the other two being HH and TT). The outcome TT has 2 tails, while its probability is the same as for 2 heads (HH) and equal to 0.25. In other words, 2 tails is a different outcome than 1 tail in 2 flips. Basically, you are trying to exploit the tendency or weakness of human beings to answer a similar but different question, i.e. not the one asked (an easier one, for the record)

You may want to try again

  I'm sorry but the question is about gambling here, so I don't know which question you're trying to reply to but there is no reason to eliminate TT here (eliminate by who BTW?) since it's a valid outcome

Okay, I will try to explain

If you don't eliminate TT, then the correct proposition should be as follows: with 2 flips we have 3 chances out of 4 to get 1 or 2 tails, which would match sequences HT, TH, and TT. Put differently, getting exactly 1 tail is not the same as getting 2 tails with 2 flips. 2 tails in 2 flips violate the proposition of only 1 tail in 2 flips

And while we are at it, it is the same with heads, i.e. 3 chances out of 4 to get 1 or 2 heads, which is HT, TH, and HH. It may look like we have total odds exceeding 1 but that's because sequences HT and TH match both propositions (i.e. they are not mutually exclusive). In simple terms, in this case you can't sum up probabilities

[Saint-loup]

So if you got already 2heads you have 3chances on 4 to get one tail in the next 2 flips.

HHHH
HHHT
HHTH
HHTT

In the next 2 flips your chances to get 1 tail are the same as to get 1 head and equal to 0.5. You have 4 possible outcomes with 2 of them having 1 tail - HT, TH (the other two being HH and TT). The outcome TT has 2 tails, while its probability is the same as for 2 heads (HH) and equal to 0.25. In other words, 2 tails is a different outcome than 1 tail in 2 flips. Basically, you are trying to exploit the tendency or weakness of human beings to answer a similar but different question, i.e. not the one asked (an easier one, for the record)

You may want to try again

  I'm sorry but the question is about gambling here, so I don't know which question you're trying to reply to but there is no reason to eliminate TT here (eliminate by who BTW?) since it's a valid outcome

Okay, I will try to explain

If you don't eliminate TT, then the correct proposition should be as follows: with 2 flips we have 3 chances out of 4 to get 1 or 2 tails, which would match sequences HT, TH, and TT. Put differently, getting exactly 1 tail is not the same as getting 2 tails with 2 flips. 2 tails in 2 flips violate the proposition of only 1 tail in 2 flips

And while we are at it, it is the same with heads, i.e. 3 chances out of 4 to get 1 or 2 heads, which is HT, TH, and HH. It may look like we have total odds exceeding 1 but that's because sequences HT and TH match both propositions (i.e. they are not mutually exclusive). In simple terms, in this case you can't sum up probabilities

One more time, you're not talking about gambling and how we play dice game in reality but about scholar mathematics. I'm sorry but I'm not here to help you to improve your gambling posts for your signature campaign, you make me wasting my time. If you don't care about gambling you're just spamming, so stop quoting me, thank you. 

[Aero Blue]

One more time, you're not talking about gambling and how we play dice game in reality but about scholar mathematics. I'm sorry but I'm not here to help you to improve your gambling posts for your signature campaign, you make me wasting my time. If you don't care about gambling you're just spamming, so stop quoting me, thank you. 

For the sake of the thread, I am going to point out a few issues with your argument. You are not the only one who has fallen victim to these fallacies, but I feel I need to address them now to also help others:

If you don't care about gambling you're just spamming, so stop quoting me, thank you.

The Appeal to Privacy: "The contemporary fallacy of arbitrarily prohibiting or terminating any discussion of one's own standpoints or behavior, no matter how absurd, dangerous, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privacy around oneself and one's actions."[1]

One more time, you're not talking about gambling and how we play dice game in reality but about scholar mathematics.

The Plain Truth Fallacy: "A fallacy of logos favoring familiar, singular, summarized or easily comprehensible data, examples, explanations and evidence over those that are more complex and unfamiliar but much closer to the truth."^[1]

The Simpleton's Fallacy: "I may be a poor, naive simpleton but I'm not quite sure what that fine and fancy lawyer-talk means in plain English."^[1]


[1]: http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.html

[libert19]

Concise post. This is why many gamblers (specially new ones) go with Martingale strategy and lose it all.

[shoreno]

Concise post. This is why many gamblers (specially new ones) go with Martingale strategy and lose it all.

when i was a newb on gambling before , i dont use strategies but later on  i have tried the martingale method  but im not dumb to loose all my balance . im only saying that not all uses martingale and not all that who use martingale are loosers  . wins or loose  itl all depend on your playstyle and not on the strategy/methods that you are using  .

[Aero Blue]

Concise post. This is why many gamblers (specially new ones) go with Martingale strategy and lose it all.

when i was a newb on gambling before , i dont use strategies but later on  i have tried the martingale method  but im not dumb to loose all my balance . im only saying that not all uses martingale and not all that who use martingale are loosers  . wins or loose  itl all depend on your playstyle and not on the strategy/methods that you are using  .

You are right about martingale, it's a lose all or double situation at the core. But it doesn't depend on your play style / strategy, but on your short term "luck". By luck, I mean your "current session odds / expected odds". So if the "expected odds" are 50%, but you are winning 70% of the time, your "session odds" are 1.4:1.

[Saint-loup]

One more time, you're not talking about gambling and how we play dice game in reality but about scholar mathematics. I'm sorry but I'm not here to help you to improve your gambling posts for your signature campaign, you make me wasting my time. If you don't care about gambling you're just spamming, so stop quoting me, thank you.  

For the sake of the thread, I am going to point out a few issues with your argument. You are not the only one who has fallen victim to these fallacies, but I feel I need to address them now to also help others:

If you don't care about gambling you're just spamming, so stop quoting me, thank you.

The Appeal to Privacy: "The contemporary fallacy of arbitrarily prohibiting or terminating any discussion of one's own standpoints or behavior, no matter how absurd, dangerous, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privacy around oneself and one's actions."[1]

One more time, you're not talking about gambling and how we play dice game in reality but about scholar mathematics.

The Plain Truth Fallacy: "A fallacy of logos favoring familiar, singular, summarized or easily comprehensible data, examples, explanations and evidence over those that are more complex and unfamiliar but much closer to the truth."^[1]

The Simpleton's Fallacy: "I may be a poor, naive simpleton but I'm not quite sure what that fine and fancy lawyer-talk means in plain English."^[1]


[1]: http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.html

It seems you forgot the fake link fallacy.
Arguing with a link which is broken  

But you have still not explained us why it would be a fallacy to think you're more likely to get one Tails and less likely to get none in the next 2 flips.
HH
HT
TH
TT
Only one possibility on 4, 25% to get no Tails.
Three possibilities on 4, 75% to get one.

And for the next 3 flips
HHH
HHT
HTH
HTT
THH
THT
TTH
TTT
One possibility on 8,  12,5% to not getting one Tails
7 possibilities on 8,  87,5% to get one.

[libert19]

Concise post. This is why many gamblers (specially new ones) go with Martingale strategy and lose it all.

when i was a newb on gambling before , i dont use strategies but later on  i have tried the martingale method  but im not dumb to loose all my balance . im only saying that not all uses martingale and not all that who use martingale are loosers  . wins or loose  itl all depend on your playstyle and not on the strategy/methods that you are using  .

I was bit generalizing, since newbie bettors will come to know about it first, and also its easy to discover by oneself.

[dataispower]

Generally speaking I wouldn't say humans are entirely bad at gambling. Some gamblers get more wins than others without applying any technique, It doesn't matter how smart you are. Note than winning a particular game with specific method doesn't guarantee you winning the next game, there is no best technique to winning in gambling. The whole ideology about gambler's fallacy is quite complicated.   

[ethereumhunter]

Note than winning a particular game with specific method doesn't guarantee you winning the next game, there is no best technique to winning in gambling.

We must remember about that so we don't risk more money to winning the next rounds because we don't know if the strategy or method could win. As long as we can have this in our mind, we can prevent from another losses that might come and the best is we can save the money. The gamblers always make a mistake in gambling, and they don't realize what will happens if they spend too much money. But that can be avoided as long as we can know how to make a limit on gambling.

[mirakal]

Concise post. This is why many gamblers (specially new ones) go with Martingale strategy and lose it all.

when i was a newb on gambling before , i dont use strategies but later on  i have tried the martingale method  but im not dumb to loose all my balance . im only saying that not all uses martingale and not all that who use martingale are loosers  . wins or loose  itl all depend on your playstyle and not on the strategy/methods that you are using  .

I was bit generalizing, since newbie bettors will come to know about it first, and also its easy to discover by oneself.

We can't deny that we were still newbie in gambling we love to experience a lot of betting technique that we read online.
Even me, I use that martingale and experience my bankroll getting busted, but have to accept it as it's part of the journey, I know you guys know how it feels when your bankroll get busted and you are expecting you have discover a method that would give you a easy money but the result is negative.