The Gamblers Fallacy Fact Or Fiction
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- Have you ever wondered if those long runs of the same result in a game of chance mean the opposite is due?
Is the Gambler's Fallacy fact or fiction? We'll provide you with mathematical insights that debunk this common misconception.
In this video we introduce the concept of geometric data, showing how observing patterns can provide valuable information for making predictions in games of chance.
We also introduce a coin flipping simulator to explore the predictability of seemingly independent random flips, shedding light on the hidden patterns that emerge from what appears to be randomness.
Throughout the video, we compare the results from multiple simulations and demonstrate how larger sample sizes prove there are predictable, repeatable pattens in the data from random independent sequences.
The goal is not to be 100% accurate in our predictions, just accurate enough to dissolve the house edge and capitalize on those predictions.
As we wrap up, we discuss the complexity of roulette results, where the vast amount of data provides countless opportunities to monitor and analyse geometric data for specific outcomes.
So, is the Gambler's Fallacy a fact or fiction?
We invite you to share your thoughts in the comments section below.
If you're interested in uncovering hidden patterns in roulette data, check out our other videos on the topic, and we hope you enjoy the fascinating world of probability and gaming analysis as much as we do!
Sorry but your assertion at 0:55 where you say that "when you consider more than one independent result you are linking them" is just bad math and that is what you base all of your further videos on.
For the next independent and mutually exclusive event,
P(A | B) [the probability of B given A] is simply and only P(B), nothing more, nothing less. You are trying to force "patterns" on strings of completely random events which is invalid. No independent event can be "linked" to any other, by definition.
Lets play Heads and Tails . . .
I win if I get a head in the next two flips:-
P(Lose Both)=P(T)⋅P(T)=0.5⋅0.5=0.25 So the only chance of losing is getting two tails in a row, there is only 25% chance of that happening in two flips - so I have a 75% chance of winning in two flips.
My bets form a sequence. My bets are not independent.
@@roulette-professionalmore bad math. Your bets are also independent. How could they not be? Some sort of "astral plane vibration" or something?? Believe what you want; it doesn't change the reality of it.
@@ObsessedWithPool You may jest, but in what dimension do you think probability keeps its score?
@@roulette-professionalName a casino game with those odds
@@roulette-professionaljust to clarify, what do you mean by "my bets are not independent" in this example, where only one bet is made?
There's a difference between a bet over a sequence of variates, where any disjoint section would be independent, and a bet on an individual variate; so I'm confused on what you are trying to say?
You know this guy definitely knows what he's doing when he confuses the logical OR sign with the probability union sign.
OMG you are right - we have used the wrong symbol - fortunately - the meaning is explained above and like you say it still is technically "OR" although even with that we should of used two pipes "||". We will of course swap the logical "OR" to math notation "u" from here on in thank you for your very sharp observation! (Although it looks better with the logical sign - lol - in fact it probably makes it clearer)
Maybe we can get you to proof check our content before we embarrass ourselves again? . . .
Thank-you for your feed back - much appreciated.
That said, with your knowledge of math, what did you actually think of the video, we would value your opinion on the topic as well.
It's important to remember that these streaks, or combination of flips is the same across all combinations, every flip generates new possible strings and therefore it appears a probability decreases but that's not what's going on.
Four heads in a row is exactly as likely as occuring as 3 heads and a single tail. When you take all data as an aggregate that is when you begin to see the trend of 50/50.
The key to everything is geometric loss levels, although its the aggregate of a string of bets that links the spins/flips together.
i.e. if you are betting on heads for two flips - P(Lose Both)=P(T)⋅P(T)=0.5⋅0.5=0.25 so the complimentary probability of that is 1-.25 = .75 or 75% chance of seeing at least 1 head in two flips
@@roulette-professional But that's simply due to combinatorics, it changes nothing about any casino game being negative expected value, save for good poker players, cheating in roulette with weighted wheels/vibrating balls, or counting cards.
If you are THIS sure of your point, put your money where your mouth is, go out and make a 100k. Your strategy might give small returns, with massive loss potential in the short run, but the law of large and regression to the mean will come to bite you.
If this worked, you'd be living in a casino spending 8 hours a day playing roulette, but you aren't.
Dude this is utterly dumb!
Or you have stakes in a casino, then you're a genius 🤣
No we don't have any affiliation with casinos. We appreciate your feedback, which bit do you think is dumb?
@@roulette-professional sorry i forgot by now😂
But it was something with the statistical proof, I remember that it proves something irrelevant then concludes that "roulettes tend to hit black more after a number of red hits"
Hello, from what I have seen of your comments I do believe you genuinely think this is a correct proof. I don't think the result here means what you think it does. I am writing a script and will be releasing a video debunking it soon, I hope you get a chance to see it.
please post a link here when your video is ready - thank you.
The problem is also another.... Infact not only is true that ball don't has memory and in Red/Black prediction you have about 48% to win and 52% to lose but there is another great problem. That casino live online (and maybe also in real life) when discover that you are using a pattern to predict a sequence they scam you and you will lose all every time.
It certainly can feel like that sometimes, many people struggle when playing a pattern or progression over multiple spins to accurately calculate the probability for a group of numbers over x number of spins, and even when they do calculate the probability correctly, the results are still based on a game with a factor of 37 which reaches astronomical proportions really quick, so it can still be a shock to see how far a group of numbers can lose for. This something we are trying to help with and have a lot of videos planned all around the subject with simulations over millions of spins. Thank you for watching . . .
If i bet in dozen the probability of series after 15 turns is about 98-99% to catch the progression but in my history i have more than 1 to 100 cases that i lost all. 40% or times. It is not possible. Maybe there are some roulette legit online but i never findd them. Anyway i like your approach. I ll follow your channel.
Thanks for your reply sinky, I wanted to share an image with you, but cannot paste images in here, so that's given me the idea to occasionally create a "Short" video with an informative answer when a viewer makes an interesting point that many others will also have experienced, so please find my full reply at th-cam.com/users/shortseMtV8H_7uFw?
@@roulette-professional I reply to you in the short video's answer. I wait for the publish of your tool . Great Job Man.!
I believe a RNG simulator could never simulate a game of roulette. Randomly generating the numbers is a very different thing than a ball landing in a pocket on a spinning wheel spun by a person. I believe these are two completely different ways of producing random outcomes. IMO
There is so much videos about systems. Like wait for two or three red and bet black. You can never beat a game with a negative edge no matter how you turn it the odds will always be the same. I feel sorry how much systems there is and youth and vulnerable People looses their money and destroying there livet. I tried everything so I know. You should play Poker if you have to play. Casino is waste of time and money.
A negative edge isn't the be-all and end-all - I'm no expert on poker, I can play fairly well but doubt I'm at a level I could make a living from.
Any form of gambling can be destructive so if anyone has a problem they should seek professional help as soon as possible.
Channels like ours are not here to encourage gambling but for those who do partake and are interested in the game then there are ways of increasing your skill or level of understanding like you can in poker.
Most gambling is about math so the more you know the better your results will be.
You may have tried everything you know, but I doubt you have tried everything there is to know, and neither have we, which makes the journey so interesting.
So show us the pattern and your statistics on profit. This is devastating for those with gambling problems. If you necessary have to play you could play poker instead.
We have a number of videos showing real money wins, there is also a series on do casinos cheat where a simple flat bet is currently ahead of expectation and our newest series is all about testing systems over a large number of spins to show players real stats.
Everything we do is about informing players of mathematical truths nothing more.
You can do it yourself with an Excel sheet. Everything I've tried so far (and I've tried a lot) results in long term losses...
@@roulette-professional your wins are luck and variance, as are your losses; nothing more. You jump to erroneous conclusions based on too small a sample size. In fact, no sample size is big enough to support the kind of conclusions you push. Look at DeliciousKissboy's 1 million runs which pretty much show the true randomness
I use this type of thinking with horse racing .
Have you heard of William/Bill Benter? he was an expert on horse race gambling so if you are in to that you might enjoy researching him and the systems he created - there are various reports saying hes worth anywhere from £500M-£1B
If I see the same color show up 6 times in a row, I start betting on opposite color and keep doing that until it hits. Only once it made it to ten. I also bet on a single number (19) each bet. So far playing roulette with this strategy, I am up $900 on mostly $3 bets after 7 visits so far. Only lost once.
I know that sounds like a good idea but it is dangerous - in extreme case a colour can go missing over twenty spins - our video why clockwork systems fail covers this and might be worth watching . . .
0:50 Link exists!!
replied to your main point . . .
Thank you for your great video
Very welcome sir . . . .
Always go for the deviation one way or another.
It seems to help . . .
I take issue with the assertion that spins of a roulette wheel are independent. On the contrary, I believe that past spins DO affect future spins. The speed of the wheel and the amount of time that the wheel spins on one spin affects where the wheel will be when the dude that spins the wheel stops the wheel from spinning and spins it in the other direction for the next spin. That next spin, therefore, will be different than it, otherwise, would have been if the wheel had been spinning slower or faster than on the previous spin.
Actually Mark we agree with you if you are talking about roulette spins in the ballistic sense, its the butterfly effect, however we only work with probability so we may have been a bit lazy making the point on for the fallacy side so sorry about that.
@@roulette-professional It's cool, man. I like the channel.
Thank you for explaining this so well. Great work!
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!
They dont scam you. Your strategy is not good enough that's all. I've won thousands off online roulette. But I have the discipline to shut it down after two units profit a day. What nearly all players I've seen do wrong. Is that they too long. Then they get destroyed...
Thank you for your comment, I think it may have been in reply to another viewers point, so to clarify I do not think the casinos scam you, certainly not the large reputable ones anyway. I agree with you, self-discipline is a major factor between success and failure in gambling in general.
I am intrigued by what system you play, especially if you only play for two units per day I would assume they are big units, if you are willing to share your system, I will run a simulation on it for 40,000 spins, and then 200,000 spins if it passes the first test.
Again many thanks for your comment . . .
You will have losing days soon
Que pena que sou Brasileiro gostaria muito de entender sua fala acho muito interessante mais não consigo entender 100%
English Question:- "What a pity that I am Brazilian, I would really like to understand what you're saying, I find it very interesting but I can't understand 100%."
English Answer:-
If you look at the description for the video, near the bottom is a button called "Show Transcript" you can copy all the English text and paste it into google translate or ask chatGPT to translate it for you.
Portuguese Answer:-
Se você olhar a descrição do vídeo, perto do final há um botão chamado "Mostrar Transcrição". Você pode copiar todo o texto em inglês e colá-lo no Google Tradutor ou pedir ao ChatGPT para traduzi-lo para você.
This is how ChatGPT Interpreted the first part of the transcript:-
Este é como o ChatGPT interpretou a primeira parte da transcrição:-
No vídeo de hoje, vamos mostrar matematicamente por que a falácia do jogador é uma ficção. A falácia do jogador é a crença de que resultados futuros de um evento aleatório, como o lançamento de uma moeda ou a rotação de uma roleta, são influenciados por resultados passados. Em outras palavras, é a noção de que, se um certo resultado não ocorreu por um tempo, então acreditamos que ele está atrasado e é mais provável de acontecer. A falácia afirma que qualquer um com essa visão está errado, porque cada resultado em uma sequência de eventos aleatórios é independente. Os defensores da falácia afirmam enfaticamente que a moeda ou roleta não têm memória e, portanto, eles não são capazes de afetar resultados futuros. É óbvio que a moeda ou roleta não têm memória; cada giro ou lançamento é completamente independente, mas é aí que você precisa de um ponto final. No momento que você considera os resultados de mais de um evento independente, você está ligando eles e a probabilidade começa a olhar por cima do seu ombro, efetivamente tornando os resultados dependentes. No entanto, gostaríamos de acrescentar uma ressalva de que, se você observar uma cadeia do mesmo resultado, não deve começar a apostar contra o resultado até que a cadeia seja quebrada. É improvável que você possa prever quando essa cadeia terminará, mas ela fornecerá muitas informações que você pode usar a seu favor, registrando dados geométricos de um lançamento de moeda ou jogo de roleta, temos uma visão poderosa sobre o que pode acontecer depois que vemos uma quebra em uma cadeia de resultados. Isso pode confirmar nossa crença esmagadora de que é um momento ótimo para apostar no resultado oposto ou pode confirmar que ainda não é aconselhável apostar de outra forma. Para registrar e fazer uso de dados geométricos, devemos primeiro entender a probabilidade do resultado que estamos medindo.
Hit 1 times on either head tail black red or big small happen the most times, and second most is hit 2 times, and third most is hit 3 times. Hit 10 or more time in a row is very very rare.
I see most player play is if it hit black they buy black if hit red they buy red this way of playing in long term they will lose I saw game happen hit on 1 time on black and 1 times on red in a row of 15 times and some even more because of the betting limited they lost, every times they lose they double the bet, they keep chasing until it reach it betting limited, if you play like them in long term you will surely lose, however I got my tactic 100% better than them
Interestingly although you are more likely to see a mix of Red and Black the sequence RBRBRBRBRB is as rare as RRRRRRRRRR. We are pleased you have a tactic that works for you.
There is no strategy to beat roulette, the secret is don't play for long... I play $100 per spin (1-18 or 19-36) and after 2 successful win I stop and continue the next day, I make $200 everyday.
Yes that's an important point, casinos do not fear players who win, they only fear players who know when to stop.
Even with monitoring data like we do you cannot play for too long otherwise the results start to average out and any advantage is lost.
Flat betting about 77 million 50:50 bets and came out ahead. th-cam.com/video/cO8BgVIMD7A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=NVJUtzOhDKrWFT2M&t=304
_...after 2 successful win, I stop..._ yeah? What do you do after 2 losses?? Leave? Continue betting? Tell us, please. The world would be grateful to you to know.
There's 2 separate probabilities. 1. Chance of getting heads or tails 2. Chance of getting all heads or tails in X number of flips.
For a 50/50 outcome the answer is the same either way you do it, for example with three flips the probability of getting all heads (HHH) or all tails (TTT) would be (1/2)^3 = 1/8, which is the same as the 12.5% depicted in the video.
Of course if you were calculating something other than a 50/50 outcome such as a win on red (18/37) verses a loss on black and green (19/37) or calculating probabilities for the dozens, then yes you would need to treat that differently.
We are just feeling our way at the moment with this new channel, we intend to publish things for a wider audience like our Complete Guide To Roulette Series which some may find a bit of a slow burn, and some more intricate videos that we hope may spark some debate which is why the gamblers fallacy was picked for a starting point.
Many thanks for your comment.
My belief is that the variations and wild swings lie in that there is not a red or black outcome, but 18 possibilities to hit red and 18 possibilities to hit black.
Yes I agree and you can apply the "wisdom of the crowd" affect, by looking at the geometric data for each red number, and then collectively.
@@roulette-professional this has also been a thought, but I think this wisdom of the crowd thing only works with something that is present. Like having lots of skittles in a jar and asking 1000 people how many skittles are in the jar. The average of all the answers will be or will be close to, the actual number of skittles in the jar. I don’t believe it can be applied to being predictive but would be a realllllllly great test! Let’s get a large number of people together and do a test!
Yes that would be fun to get a load of people to make a prediction then try with the most common prediction lol - but that's not exactly what I meant.
What I mean in principle is that when you are covering a large number of pockets like red or black for example, each pocket is a member of the crowd, each pocket has its own current properties i.e. such as its current loss level, how many wins its had, at what loss level those wins were at in a geometric sense, and many more.
If you look at all the properties collectively i.e all the reds verses all the blacks you can make distinctions between the groups based upon the merits (wisdom) of the pockets (crowd)
This will be in a video but not planned for a few months yet as there is much more to do before it will make sense.
We might run a simulation on the wisdom of the crowd though with x number simulated of players what a great thought!
The fight randomness with randomness approach is something we have looked at with impressive results so that might be a fun way of introducing the topic!
Thanks for the comments.
Well done in research
Many thanks . . .
Gambler's Fallacy is one of the most ridiculous notions in gambling that I've ever heard of. Most if not all gambling on roulette is based on the outcome of the previous spins or chart information from the roulette table.
So True! Debunking the fallacy is probably one of the biggest reasons we started this channel . . .
@@roulette-professionalcan't debunk something using bad math
Return to player = odd pay / real odd = 35/36= 0,97222
Real odd roulete one zero = 36/1
Odd that casino offer = 35/1
That's right its a negative expectation game, so you have to get around that - we will explain that in the next video coming soon.
Omg people you dont understand that you dont bet against machine or probability you bet against person
Do you mean we each receive our own personal version of probability and therefore each individual will experience different results in the short term but the same results in the long term?
@@roulette-professional probability cant be calculated if the person is agains us but if it is a machine with same spins every time like(speed of ball,speed of will)then we will have some calculacion for probability
@@roulette-professional its more like the machine see the bets on the table and pay the smaller amount of them, in the end is another slot machine, first cumulate and then release the rewards.
Thank you. for bringing this up. The world needs the answer once for ever. However, I am disappointed in your presentation as it did not gave the answer about Gambler's fallacy. I expected you'd provide the answer as you started the whole thing. Fact or fiction? Further, you took too much time and complicated whole issue to prove nothing!??
.
Nevertheless, I will give you the answer. _(I don't care about gambler's fallacy, as it was not me who coined it)_ I'll tell you that EACH COIN TOSS IS DEPENDENT ON PREVIOUS COIN TOSSES. _"Coin has no memory"_ is the saying of those who have no sound proof that coin tosses are independent, which proves them wrong. OF COURSE, COIN HAS NO MEMORY. HOW CAN A DEAD THING HAVE A MEMORY?? Saying that, one enters a desperate ground. Monday cannot be on Sunday, can it!! The Earth Gravity has no memory either, yet it keeps any physical object at its control!!
.
The fact that a coin toss is of 50/50 probability is a clear proof that each coin toss is DEPENDENT ON THE PAST TOSSES. Simply: there has to be something that keeps it at 50/50!! Whatever that is, I do not care. It's not my duty here to explain that, as long as I know that is the fact. If the coin tosses were independent, then we would not have probability of 50/50. It would've been undefined. Totally wild and could gone to any ratios: i.e. 74/26, 99/1, 12/88, ....UNDEFINED. Since it is defined and very STRONGLY DEFINED, then they're dependent. End of proof.
.
Case closed. Thank you for disagreeing.
Thank you for your input, I wouldn't say we disagree with you.
You already have an understanding that the fallacy is fiction due to probability, however not everyone shares your view.
Our intention was to take a demonstrative (instead of dogmatic) approach to show staunch fallacists how the accumulation of data proves the fallacy is incorrect to an extent.
In an academic sense the results are not dependant on the past results, but the accumulation of results means probability outweighs independence.
The fallacy is fiction from a practical application point of view, the results of repeated trials can be accurately predicted over time.
However in the true sense of the argument, 3 blacks in a row do not guarantee 3 reds will follow so the fallacy is also has merit.
Both points of view are technically correct which creates a paradox, however to be clear our whole channel is based on the ability to use past data to predict future outcomes, from that perspective our view is the fallacy is fiction.
@@roulette-professional Makes sense. I can live with that explanation. 👍
I agree, you can't predict it in detail but I think you can on an overall level. It's like the weather forecasting. If you look at a specifik local point, a village, the forecast is very very uncertain. But if you look at the forecast on a larger scale over the whole country it is pretty accurate.
Something to add, if it was just 50-50 chance of winning with no Casino edge you could win in the long run with the strategy of mean reversion. But, and this is a big BUT, because there as a Casino edge it will eat up all your profits eventually before the numbers revert to the mean and you'll be on minus.