As someone with schizophrenia I experience apophenia constantly but it isn't as scary as when I was unmedicated. I think it goes hand in hand with delusions since it's a false belief that, for example, seeing three red cars pass by means I'll be having cherry ice cream tonight.
As someone with apophenia I've noticed that it is always best to continue to bet on the pattern continuing. For example, usually it will be red or black, but if it has gone, red - black - red - black, then i would bet red. As such in the above example I would have continued with black.
Casinos place betting limits (sometimes referred to as table limits) to avoid a "whale" (aka "high roller") from "buying the game". While it is true per the roulette example that each spin of the wheel is independent and does not rely on previous results, it is immensely unlikely that the ball will land on one color forever. Therefore the key to winning is to simply bet more on the same color than the sum of your losses - if you have the cash and a casino foolish enough to allow you to bet without limits you will, with your risk asymptotically approaching zero, walk out of the place a winner (after only 31 spins your odds of losing a 32nd time are 1 in 4,294,967,296 - and yes, this means that you bet would have to be absurdly large). So while the gambler's fallacy doesn't affect the odds of an individual spin, neither does it invalidate the fact that it is very highly probable that (in a game that is not rigged) a different color will eventually show up.
That's a very good point! I do very much agree with you Mike. But I can't deny the fact most people never have enough money to see their final winning game. Sometimes you may just be one game away from your eventual winning but you simply run out of money. That's the worst feeling ever lol
@@PhyPsyFilm it's a great example because it could go either way (back to 50/50 again) depending on other biases - 'oh it'll be black because that's been coming up a lot' or 'it's got to go red at some point, and now seems more likely than ever'.
@@PhyPsyFilm Don't know about Mr Eonas but I've suffered from it (and chess :-) for a very long time. Your analysis isn't quite wrong, but if you get ten heads in a row the first thing you should do is check (no pun intended) to see if the coin is bent.
Bet? You're making a classic error - the gambit that it's probability that determines an outcome is strictly materialistic and dreads the possibility of something that your mind simply cannot comprehend - because it has not been educated. You therefore are calcified (excluded) and cannot allow the possibility of an a-material cause (or purpose) to exist. In fact the run of 10x black has a probability of 00.1%. Now let's say that series continues to 20. That's 00.0001% probable. You see what is happening? Every subsequent "transaction" is in fact multiplying (or rather dividing) the initial 50% probability. Do you wish to heal yourself of this error? All you have to do is *consider the series* as a single event. Your mind refuses to do that because you are hyper-fixated on the transaction - and specifically your perception of linearity. But ask yourself why? If you persist, you'll be making a bet that is completely uninformed. Suppose it is your friend and he claims that he does this with some regularity? And that if he gets to 10 - he can go to 20? (this is presuming the house can't cheat or simply call an end - not a good assumption.) You cannot explain things that are routinely occurring that simply defy probability and simply call them random. And you'll have to ignore everything you observe that in fact are patterns of meaning that you cannot understand and cannot accept it as evidence. That is officially Radomania. I hope to find a word meaning "an abundance of proof of patterns" - perhaps Copaphenia? Suggest if you can.
