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

[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.

[1714606593]

1714606593

[1714606593]

1714606593

[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.