The Monte Carlo fallacy

[Kakmakr]

I know a little bit about the mechanics behind the math and how the gambling system work, so I figured out that all bets are unique and not linked to any previous bets.

You have a Client seed and Server seed and RNG and those things work together to determine the outcome of every individual bet you make.

Yes, there are also things like "Variance" and "RTP" ... but the individual outcome of each bet, is still unique and not linked to previous bets. 

[pinggoki]

~

I play heads or tails. It never happened in the history of the game that the outcome will always be heads. There are only two possible outcomes, and it's impossible that tails will never come out in the entire duration of the game. That's why whenever the result has been heads for the past 8 or 10 consecutive tosses, it is expected that the bettors would be heavily betting on the tails. The basis may be fallacious or logical, but if they take into consideration that never has it happened that tails never comes out, then I guess that isn't a fallacy.

I also bet on cockfighting and the same is true. It is either the favorite or the underdog. But never has it happened that in the entire derby only the favorite wins. That's impossible.

Just because someone believes it to be true and that it's impossible that it can never happen, doesn't discount the fact that gambler's fallacy is a fallacy, just because they take it into consideration doesn't mean that it will suddenly not become a fallacy, that's not how fallacies work if I'm right, they don't just lose that part because someone "considered". I wouldn't say that it's impossible that a coin toss will only result in heads (or tails) forever because it's a possibility too. Take for example 5 coin flips as a representation that infinite heads can be happen:

HHHHH
HTHHH
HTTHH
HTTTT
TTTTT
THHHH
TTHHH
TTTHH
TTTTH

This isn't the complete possibilities since there's 32 combinations out there for that flip, we just think that it's impossible because it can only happen once and it's just like any other combination but we're so used to patterns that we ignore that and consider it an impossibility because monotony in results is weird for us.

[Natsuu]

The gambler's fallacy is basically thinking that if something happened a lot before, it's less likely to happen again soon right? Like, if you've been rolling dice and getting low numbers, thinking the next roll is more likely to be high. But in reality each roll is independent and past outcomes don't affect future ones. Even though many gamblers especially the pros get this, it's easy to fall into the trap. It's all about probability, not luck or patterns. Being aware of this helps in making smarter choices in games and stuff. So next time you're tempted to believe the dice owe you a good roll because you've had bad ones, remember, they don't keep score haha

[btc_angela]

The gambler's fallacy is basically thinking that if something happened a lot before, it's less likely to happen again soon right? Like, if you've been rolling dice and getting low numbers, thinking the next roll is more likely to be high. But in reality each roll is independent and past outcomes don't affect future ones. Even though many gamblers especially the pros get this, it's easy to fall into the trap. It's all about probability, not luck or patterns. Being aware of this helps in making smarter choices in games and stuff. So next time you're tempted to believe the dice owe you a good roll because you've had bad ones, remember, they don't keep score haha

Or it could happen again, because base gamblers might think that the occurrence will be the same as before. But it's wrong mindset as we don't know what will be the outcome in the next roll of dice, so it's a trap.

And if gamblers knows this fallacy, then they should not fall for it and not think that there will be some effect on the future result based on what is happening the previous one. Hard to think about it, but we always love to find connection in gambling, but if by any chance you are correct, doesn't mean it will continue that trend so be very careful of it as you might bet big because you think it will happen again.

[Darker45]

~

I play heads or tails. It never happened in the history of the game that the outcome will always be heads. There are only two possible outcomes, and it's impossible that tails will never come out in the entire duration of the game. That's why whenever the result has been heads for the past 8 or 10 consecutive tosses, it is expected that the bettors would be heavily betting on the tails. The basis may be fallacious or logical, but if they take into consideration that never has it happened that tails never comes out, then I guess that isn't a fallacy.

I also bet on cockfighting and the same is true. It is either the favorite or the underdog. But never has it happened that in the entire derby only the favorite wins. That's impossible.

Just because someone believes it to be true and that it's impossible that it can never happen, doesn't discount the fact that gambler's fallacy is a fallacy, just because they take it into consideration doesn't mean that it will suddenly not become a fallacy, that's not how fallacies work if I'm right, they don't just lose that part because someone "considered". I wouldn't say that it's impossible that a coin toss will only result in heads (or tails) forever because it's a possibility too. Take for example 5 coin flips as a representation that infinite heads can be happen:

HHHHH
HTHHH
HTTHH
HTTTT
TTTTT
THHHH
TTHHH
TTTHH
TTTTH

This isn't the complete possibilities since there's 32 combinations out there for that flip, we just think that it's impossible because it can only happen once and it's just like any other combination but we're so used to patterns that we ignore that and consider it an impossibility because monotony in results is weird for us.

I guess there are two points to consider here. First, the gambler's fallacy. It is indeed true that flips or rolls are independent of each other. Therefore, the previous results can't be a basis for future results. That's true. The second point is not related to the first. If you flip a coin 1,000 times and there's a 50:50 chance that heads or tails will come out, it can't be possible that all 1,000 flips would be heads. Logic is also the basis of this. This doesn't challenge the gambler's fallacy, though.

[danherbias07]

I think this only happens for physical casinos because in online casinos there's this thing called RTP (return to player) so I guess when you think the next roll will give you back what you lost, it is possible.
Another example is when I play Keno. The most obvious to see is when you play high-risk games in a small amount of numbers picked.
Let's say 8 digits. The ratio of this is 9:1 or 10:1. 10 losses, 1 win. 6 digits will give you a multiplier of x270.
Now, when you play the game, it will not be that long before you lose x270 of your capital and then suddenly that same multiplier will come out. Some gamblers are running away at x200 loss without even thinking the RTP is coming and will give back either the ROI or just a bit of loss.
Now there are lucky gamblers who will hit that high multiplier twice just 100 bets but still, if they play longer the system will get it back making you either lose in a streak or slowly eat all your profits.
So I guess you could say that in 10 rounds of roulette, all is red, and the next one will probably be black because RTP will hit trying to give back what a gambler has lost.

[Julien_Olynpic]

I think this is not entirely misleading. More precisely, this is not a delusion, but a complex philosophical problem. Precisely philosophical, and not, for example, mathematical. And here there is a certain dialectical contradiction. On the one hand, of course, the result of each subsequent coin toss does not depend on the results of the previous one. But this also means that each coin toss has a 50% chance of landing heads. This means that in practice there is always the possibility that if we toss a coin 10,000 times, then all 10,000 times it may come up heads. However, in practice this is such a rare event that it is practically impossible. By the way, the logic that the same number cannot appear indefinitely many times is implicit in pseudo-random number generators.
       I think that if one of you tossed a coin even 1000 times and got heads 1000 times, then surely many would think that such a loss was not accidental. Surely the coin’s center of gravity is shifted.

[Porfirii]

I know a little bit about the mechanics behind the math and how the gambling system work, so I figured out that all bets are unique and not linked to any previous bets.

You have a Client seed and Server seed and RNG and those things work together to determine the outcome of every individual bet you make.

Yes, there are also things like "Variance" and "RTP" ... but the individual outcome of each bet, is still unique and not linked to previous bets. 

And, surprisingly, many people who have studied statistics and probability struggle to understand the basis of this fallacy: that there is a difference between calculating on beforehand vs when previous bets already happened.

If you calculate the probability to get 10 victories in a row, you have to multiply the probability of winning each bet ten times, so the answer is really low; but if you already got 9 victories, the probability of getting a 10th one doesn't rely on the past: it is unique, non-dependent on the other 9 victories. I like to call it a "reset" after each result.

[Jawhead999]

It doesn't happen in gambling, every bet you made is start from 0, so the result will always be new and not looking to the past results.

If Monte Carlo fallacy exist, every gamblers who use martingale strategy must be rich because the last bet will make them able recover their past losses, it makes them have no way to loss if they keep gambling.

[Slow death]

I don't play gambling games that depend on luck because I don't see any strategy that could be implemented, but when it comes to giving value to past events to use as data for decision-making in the present, I see that in sports betting the past events are very important that they are well memorized because they have a greater chance of happening, a team confrontation between both teams, we see that in the last 10 games, team X beat team Z in all of the last 10 games. In sports betting, this information is very important when betting on a team and if the person ignores this detail, they may run the risk of losing their bet.

This shows that in sports betting we look at past events that were repeated the most and based on that we bet that the past event that was repeated the most will be repeated again. At least in my case I have done my analyzes this way. Of course, I add other factors to the analysis such as the players' skills, injuries, coaches' skills, the results obtained at home and away from home in the last 5 games and when I look at this part of the results of the games played at home and away from home I'm quick pay attention to events that have been repeated the most, such as whether a team has had many consecutive games winning or not winning at home and away from home

[Sunderland]

- snip -

Perhaps the majority of gamblers know this , especially the professionals and old-timers. Personally, I always fall into this trap.

-What is your analysis about this trick?

Always keep in mind that with provably fair or RNG - random number generator = any previous outcome wont affect a future outcome.
For example, the previous outcomes of throwing a single dice were 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 2.
On the next round, the probability of each number will always the same which is 1/6.
The probability/odds will always the same, no matter what the previous result was.

[wxa7115]

Just because someone believes it to be true and that it's impossible that it can never happen, doesn't discount the fact that gambler's fallacy is a fallacy, just because they take it into consideration doesn't mean that it will suddenly not become a fallacy, that's not how fallacies work if I'm right, they don't just lose that part because someone "considered". I wouldn't say that it's impossible that a coin toss will only result in heads (or tails) forever because it's a possibility too. Take for example 5 coin flips as a representation that infinite heads can be happen:

HHHHH
HTHHH
HTTHH
HTTTT
TTTTT
THHHH
TTHHH
TTTHH
TTTTH

This isn't the complete possibilities since there's 32 combinations out there for that flip, we just think that it's impossible because it can only happen once and it's just like any other combination but we're so used to patterns that we ignore that and consider it an impossibility because monotony in results is weird for us.

I guess there are two points to consider here. First, the gambler's fallacy. It is indeed true that flips or rolls are independent of each other. Therefore, the previous results can't be a basis for future results. That's true. The second point is not related to the first. If you flip a coin 1,000 times and there's a 50:50 chance that heads or tails will come out, it can't be possible that all 1,000 flips would be heads. Logic is also the basis of this. This doesn't challenge the gambler's fallacy, though.

However, while getting 1000 heads out of 1000 coin flips is very unlikely, the chances of this happening changes according to the number of times you do this.

So if for example you flipped a coin trillions of times the chances of a series of 1000 flips coming up as heads consecutively increases, and if you could increase that number of flips even further, you may come to a point in which getting that result becomes a certainty, so you have no way to know if the flips you are doing are in fact the ones that will come up with such an unlikely outcome.

[Mahanton]

Hi community,

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy, is the mistaken belief that if a certain thing has happened more frequently than usual during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it is otherwise proven that the probability of such events occurring is not It depends on what happened in the past. Such events, which are historically independent, are referred to as statistically independent. For example, the next dice roll is likely to be a six because the number of dice has recently been lower than the usual number of six.

Perhaps the majority of gamblers know this , especially the professionals and old-timers. Personally, I always fall into this trap.

-What is your analysis about this trick?

When you do gamble then you would really be having this kind of assumptions considering your brain would really be able to observe something on to those numbers that hasnt come out. I dont know that this one is called to me Monte Carlo fallacy or whatsoever kind of method you are really that mentioning. Considering this kind of behavior or strategy in mind then i dont see for it to be controlled. It does come naturally on having those
assumptions that it would might come out. This is why we would really be tending to chase it up and might be putting up that big bet on a number that hasnt come out yet. I have also tested out this kind of
approach towards gambling and same as yours on which i do end up on losing up more. Why? on the time that i do make or put up bets on the number with bigger amount because i do tend to chase
up those loses that i have done earlier.

[retreat]

I don't know that it's been called the Monte Carlo fallacy all this time, but it's true that quite a lot of gamblers believe that certain events that have happened frequently will happen again in the future and they follow that pattern to be able to win at gambling. But I myself don't really believe in things that happened in the past and want to gamble on them, because I think logically that the games I play are based on algorithms. And it would be impossible that a previously occurring event would intervene in the game in the present and it could make me win the game when I bet on it or against it.

[carlfebz2]

Hi community,

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy, is the mistaken belief that if a certain thing has happened more frequently than usual during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it is otherwise proven that the probability of such events occurring is not It depends on what happened in the past. Such events, which are historically independent, are referred to as statistically independent. For example, the next dice roll is likely to be a six because the number of dice has recently been lower than the usual number of six.

Perhaps the majority of gamblers know this , especially the professionals and old-timers. Personally, I always fall into this trap.

-What is your analysis about this trick?

When you do gamble then you would really be having this kind of assumptions considering your brain would really be able to observe something on to those numbers that hasnt come out. I dont know that this one is called to me Monte Carlo fallacy or whatsoever kind of method you are really that mentioning. Considering this kind of behavior or strategy in mind then i dont see for it to be controlled. It does come naturally on having those
assumptions that it would might come out. This is why we would really be tending to chase it up and might be putting up that big bet on a number that hasnt come out yet. I have also tested out this kind of
approach towards gambling and same as yours on which i do end up on losing up more. Why? on the time that i do make or put up bets on the number with bigger amount because i do tend to chase
up those loses that i have done earlier.

I agee into your point on where those kind of pattern making will come out basing into your observation which same as you said. Just like the rest been saying that this is also my
first time on hearing out this kind of definition on which it is really that some new into our ears. Repetition of occurence of certain digit will really be giving out that kind of thinking
that the next digit would come out will really be those digits that havent been able come out and this is really a common assumption.

It would be that normal that you will really be betting on it on higher amount because you are assuming that you could be able to recover on what you have lost earlier.
Its a normal approach that you will be assuming that it will having those kind of next bet results might be something like this.

[Poker Player]

-What is your analysis about this trick?

My analysis is that people tend to confuse the difference between a series of events and individual events. The probability of coming out 10 times in a row red in roulette is tiny, but if it has come out 9 times red, in the next spin the probability is still about 50% (actually a little less, depending on the type of roulette). You don't bet on what happens in a series, you bet on what happens in an individual spin, hence the confusion.

[Litzki1990]

If the first time the dice comes up as a two or a three then it can be less than that or any number. If I think that the first dice I get is a 2 or a 3 and the next I get a 6, then this assumption is definitely wrong because you can never say for sure what the next movement of the dice will be. 

When we play ludo and when we turn the ludo table and throw it in the center of ludo but we all expect six to come up but it doesn't happen many times same number keeps coming up again and again. The same number keeps coming up and every time we play all the time we expect six to come up but every time the opposite happens. But when six is less likely to come up or when it doesn't seem like six will come up then six comes up. 
If the gambler gambles with such misconceptions, then it can be said that he is taking a big financial risk.

[OgNasty]

Hi community,

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy, is the mistaken belief that if a certain thing has happened more frequently than usual during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it is otherwise proven that the probability of such events occurring is not It depends on what happened in the past. Such events, which are historically independent, are referred to as statistically independent. For example, the next dice roll is likely to be a six because the number of dice has recently been lower than the usual number of six.

Perhaps the majority of gamblers know this , especially the professionals and old-timers. Personally, I always fall into this trap.

-What is your analysis about this trick?

While what you say is true to some extent, I don't believe it is a 100% accurate statement.  For example, if you flip a coin any number of times, it will at some point if you go long enough be results of 50/50.  That means if you get WAY out of line with that, luck insists that it will balance out and thus the odds going forward must favor one to the other.  Does that mean you can predict the next flip or that the odds are necessarily higher?  Not really, but one also has to say that it does have slightly different odds otherwise a return to the odds of 50/50 couldn't be relied on to happen. 

[harapan]

Hi community,

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy, is the mistaken belief that if a certain thing has happened more frequently than usual during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it is otherwise proven that the probability of such events occurring is not It depends on what happened in the past. Such events, which are historically independent, are referred to as statistically independent. For example, the next dice roll is likely to be a six because the number of dice has recently been lower than the usual number of six.

Perhaps the majority of gamblers know this , especially the professionals and old-timers. Personally, I always fall into this trap.

-What is your analysis about this trick?

This fallacy can't be true but works for those that have believed in it back in the days, talking about probability it's a very tactical issue to handle and the results is either a win or a loss and you know what that means,if your saying that whenever something ocgur in the past there's a tendency that the chances of reoccurring is on a low,I believe it's certainly a mode whereby casinos make more funds from gamblers because the mindset of the gambler's will be that have won in the past and countless time I don't think I'll win this.
It's otherwise reducing the high hopes of gamblers.
I believe not withstanding this fallacy of Monte Carlo there's a new leaf to it now and this fallacy don't work as it may seem anymore.

[Hewlet]

It's theoretically a fallacy of generalization but in reality it does work out for most people. Maybe the theory has a lot to do with what happens with seasons of the year resulting in similar activities happening at every seasons of the year.

In the gambling context, some person has noticed that they normally win in their gambling at particular day of the week and would normally take gambling on set days seriously because it's their lucky day. Spending on their believe systems and whether or not it actually works well for the theory of Monte Carlo isn't fallacy at all.