The Gamblers Fallacy Fact Or Fiction 

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 ru-vid.comeMtV8H_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

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.

So True! Debunking the fallacy is probably one of the biggest reasons we started this channel . . .

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.

Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!

Many thanks . . .

Very welcome sir . . . .

It seems to help . . .

replied to your main point . . .

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.

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.

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

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.

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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cO8BgVIMD7A.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.