The Monte Carlo fallacy

[ARTOIS]

 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?

[Hispo]

I have had heard about it, but I did not know it was called the Monte Carlo fallacy. To me it is just the basic instinct of the human beings to try to find patterns and relations between the events which have occurred in the past and those which may occur in the future.
There is not much to say about it, I think. We just need to keep our heads cold and do not allow our greed to mix up with pattern recognition, otherwise, it would be easier for us to fall into following cues which are not actually even there while gambling.

The Monte Carlo fallacy is easy to counter if one take a look and study basic statistics, there is when one realizes how the perceptions we have on numbers resulting on a dice session or a roulette session do not have any scientific base.
There is not truly a difference between trying to find fake cues while gambling and using charms or magic to try to earn money off the casino. 

[Gozie51]

Personally I don't believe in such analysis. As it is called... fallacy, and so it won't work for everyone. I don't rely on the occurrence as such. If a dice produces the number 6, it doesn't mean the next number to produce is likely to be lower than it or if it has produced the frequency of 6, it may still repeat it or some number lesser. I only see luck to it and not probability or mathematical calculations.

However, I know that so many people still believe in some things that they use as a sign for profitable gambling or to indicate when the loses will come. But if this is the case that they are always accurate then we will have more gambling winners than people complaining of risk and loses in gambling .

[PytagoraZ]

-What is your analysis about this trick?

If we talk about probability then a number that has not come out will have a higher chance in the next round, but we don't know when the number will come out and we need to wait for how many rounds. But I'm not too sure about tricks like that, especially since online gambling usually uses hashes, it would be more difficult to predict.

Like the Martiangel trick which increases the bet by half when we lose in the previous round, but there are times when we lose continuously and increase the bet continuously and if the balance is no longer enough, then in the end the balance will run out before the win comes.

I don't believe in tricks, I prefer to use feelings

[cabron]

This is probably the speculated to come as it's due to come.
This is just like the person who kept buying the same combination on the lottery ticket that he had been betting on for months and he thinks his combination will be the next to come because it is due to come after all he is betting the same combination for months.

The dice rolls under six several times and it's sure to roll on six over time. But for for lottery, its one-in-a-million chance.

[SamReomo]

That's just a fallacy and nothing more, in actual gaming nothing like that happens and most of the gamblers are sure examples to prove that. This fallacy brings fake hope in the minds of the gamblers and they think that it's a strategy. Sometimes we see consistent sixes in dice while other times we may see consistent 1's, and that proves the phenomena of Monte Carlo Fallacy is just a part of someone's imagination and not a part of reality.

[Kemarit]

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?

I think it's a phenomenon that everyone falls for it, even those who are really that experience. Most of the time we try to find patterns in this random world and says that we have broken the system. But it's not gamblers fallacy is one of the worst if we are going to believed it in. For example the table card of baccarat, wherein there are a lot of supposedly pattern, i.e. big eye, alternating Player and Banker pattern, etc.

So if you fall for this trap, it will end up very bad. So it's really a game of chance, either you win or lose and it's base if you are lucky or not. If we have patterns and it's effect then casinos could have gone bankrupt already as any can beat them with this supposedly method of identifying certain patterns.

[alani123]

People taking the martingale "strategy" or even the reverse martingale strategy will often do so under the impression that eventually, they will win.
Well here's the thing, these strategies only work if you have unlimited money.

So really, chances aren't on anybody's side. Something will get to you. Perhaps the realistic chance of getting many consecutive losses, max wins, max bets etc...
It's best to just play gambling with amounts that are irrelevant. Then you don't have to worry about losses.

[STT]

It does sound like sensible advice not to take unreasonable expectations but my natural thinking is to imagine an average outcome and a reversion to mean.   Dice roll is a good example I suppose because it will be independent and different every time presuming the dice is perfectly unbiased.

A bad example for this rule would be cards played from a deck where the cards seen do influence the odds of other cards appearing because its a limited set and they are all related.  Still we can never know for sure and most of us cant properly calculate the odds to a useful extent.   I do go from my experience playing previously though and Ive played alot of hands of Poker and I dont think I'm too far off in my reckoning most games though its always random true enough

[Darker45]

I also fall into this trap but not always. But I think it's normal and even logical to a certain extent to commit this. Although it is indeed a fallacy to assume that the next roll will be different because the previous series of rolls are the same, it is also next to impossible for all the rolls to be the same.

In a dice game, for example, it is hard to happen that the rolls would all be <50 all throughout your session, so that if there are already 15 consecutive <50 rolls, it is probably wise to bet on >50 on the next roll. Again, it isn't necessarily a logical bet but it is very rare for all the rolls to continue hitting <50 until the end. It will be different at some point.

[Text]

We tend to think that streaks should balance out in the long run, but every outcome in a random event is completely independent. Each dice roll, coin toss, or roulette spin has the same odds, regardless of what happened before.

Imagine flipping a coin, if you get heads five times in a row, it might feel like tails are due next. But that's not true, each flip is like a new coin, with a 50/50 chance of landing on heads or tails.

[Hispo]

People taking the martingale "strategy" or even the reverse martingale strategy will often do so under the impression that eventually, they will win.
Well here's the thing, these strategies only work if you have unlimited money.

So really, chances aren't on anybody's side. Something will get to you. Perhaps the realistic chance of getting many consecutive losses, max wins, max bets etc...
It's best to just play gambling with amounts that are irrelevant. Then you don't have to worry about losses.

You know, I have read much about Martingale here in the gambling section and most of people agree that as strategy seems to only work if the person has a very big bankroll to wager and and exponentially increase their risk. In my opinion, such "strategy " is just a fruitless way to try to beat dices and it would drain the pockets of the average gambler in a single session.
Though, since in this thread we are talking about patterns or the recognition about patterns, a more suitable example would be how people who like dices (like me) notice when there have been many consecutive wins in a row, which leads to change the wager or the strategy.

I happened to me once: I was playing dices and noticed I was having a good row of wins with an intermediate multiplier, I got 5 or 6 positive results with about 20$ and then, I thought I was going to start to lose money because of how many good rolls I have had by then, so I started to decrease by wager to 5$ or 1$. I know that move from my part does not make any statistical sense, but that is how the human brain works, I guess. In the end, it did not matter as I lost my money anyways, to my bad luck striking again.  

[angrybirdy]

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?

I was also fall into this trap before but not now, It's like some normal instincts from other perspective,so I decided to follow my own insticts too. and if you always rely on that strategy, there is a big possibility that you will be exhausted, as if you are just following the flow of the game and you are no longer the one who decides on your own bet because it is already imprinted in your mind that you need to use a different strategy you to win but in the end, your guess is not correct.

[Samlucky O]

When things happen frequently it is likely to be a coincidence and people might mistake it for belief, and they will assumes that history will always respect itself where as it was just a coincidence. For me there is nothing like such, whatever thing that happens, happens coincidentally except otherwise using (Black magic).  When we where younger we play dice game, we cast a dice to a table and call a certain number, like asking 6 or 5 to show up, and eventually the number comes up. We might do it 3 to 4 consecutive times and yet it will come up but that doesn't mean history repeating itself. If any body want to study it, you might end up studying and endless journey, Because all are facility and emagination

[pinggoki]

I also fall into this trap but not always. But I think it's normal and even logical to a certain extent to commit this. Although it is indeed a fallacy to assume that the next roll will be different because the previous series of rolls are the same, it is also next to impossible for all the rolls to be the same.

It's not logical or normal if it has a fallacy in it. It's not in literal sense that it's a gambling related too I think, it's more like some kind of assumption fails that lead to conclusions that are baseless and at the same time really wrong because the conclusion was non-existent in the first place. For me, this is just some kind of psychological phenomenon at best, we need to cope after all with what is happening.

In a dice game, for example, it is hard to happen that the rolls would all be <50 all throughout your session, so that if there are already 15 consecutive <50 rolls, it is probably wise to bet on >50 on the next roll. Again, it isn't necessarily a logical bet but it is very rare for all the rolls to continue hitting <50 until the end. It will be different at some point.

That's still fallacy because you assume that the outcome would be different because of the assumption that there's a pattern but in mathematical sense, it's just that there's not a lot of possible outcomes in dice so the likelihood of consecutive rolls of the same results is higher than most.

[Darker45]

In a dice game, for example, it is hard to happen that the rolls would all be <50 all throughout your session, so that if there are already 15 consecutive <50 rolls, it is probably wise to bet on >50 on the next roll. Again, it isn't necessarily a logical bet but it is very rare for all the rolls to continue hitting <50 until the end. It will be different at some point.

That's still fallacy because you assume that the outcome would be different because of the assumption that there's a pattern but in mathematical sense, it's just that there's not a lot of possible outcomes in dice so the likelihood of consecutive rolls of the same results is higher than most.

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.

[dimonstration]

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?

It’s just an old version of gambling strategy which user increases bets when losing since they think the chance of winning will increase whenever their bets is losing. In reality each bet is independent so even though you experience tons of losses in the past there’s still a chance that you will experience it in the future except if you are continuously experiencing it without a win which means there’s something wrong on casino RTP.

There’s no trick about this but a mere belief dedicated to fool gamblers self to bet more despite losing already.

[wxa7115]

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?

It is a mistake that is often made not only by gamblers but by regular people as well, but it should not be surprising at all, probability is a deep subject which sometimes can be counterintuitive, and only until a very detailed and clear explanation is given people can get to understand why things are like that.

However once you understand what it is going on, it is easier to avoid such thoughts and to avoid making a mistake based on them.

[Lida93]

If this pattern of thinking was to be true which obviously it's not because just as the name implies 'lallacy', but let assume it was to be a truism of a method that works at all many a gambler would have been making large some of profits from it closing down casinos and other gambling outlets.

Take the dice game from the op for instance, in an independent event like a dice game the actuality of the number 6 to be actualized just because lower numbers has been appearing frequently for the past games is not just guaranteed and Vis-a-vis the other way too. Just maybe the 6 number appeared it should be regarded as luck and nothing less of a pattern or a speculative strategy because it's all but fallacy for an independent event except otherwise.

[Porfirii]

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.

-snip-

Many people doesn't understand this idea. I remember a discussion with one of my friends a few years ago, and in the end I was unable to convince him about the fact that, once you have rolled the dice, flipped the coin, spinned the roulette... the next result has nothing to do with the previous ones. The most disturbing thing about the issue was that he has a degree in a field of science I won't mention (he has studied calculus, and probabilistic is taken for granted) and not only still falls in the Montecarlo trap, but is unable to see it even after an hour of intense debate.