99% of players believe in Gambler's fallacy

[javierfg]

Basically it is believing that past bets affect future bets.

 

 

For example:

- Believing that "after 10 reds in a row in roulette, there are more options for black than for red"

- Believe that "after X losses in a row in BJ you have more options for victory"

- "In Dice, after 9000 bets without winning a x30, there are more options for the multiplier to come out"

 

 

 

And you? Do you believe in this fallacy?

 

[Shaque]

Best thing to remember is that RTP has no memory, the past is not a guarantee of the future and vice versa.

[jinand]

I don't know if true or not but after i hit 700x on gates of Olympus , it has been shit so far on that specific slot.

[J-Dawg]

There is 2 things at play. Take a deck of cards. One is randomly shuffled. One is shuffled very specifically in a way that you would only come across in normal life once in a blue moon

And to add to it, it has been shuffled by top human behaviorists and psychologists.

You see how that works?

We are only here on this earth as we have descended from generations of people that were good at assessing risk. That skill comes from observing the natural order of things, it's in our cell memory.

No one minds losing. A normally shuffled pack of cards 99% of the time, makes logical sense, the cards come out in streaks, choppy, all with what we have come to expect from our experiences in life plus the eons of knowledge passed down through our cell memory.

But the pack of cards organised by the top behavioral psychologists, are ones that are not found in the wild often, if ever for 99.9% of people on earth. The colors of the cards come out in a way that makes little to no sense, and are purposely done like that. B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B R B R B B B B B B B R R R R etc

(B-black, R- red)

For example the martingale system. If you have enough money to double your bet 7 times, there is less than a 1% chance of you losing. Let that sink in

There's gamblers fallacy, and there's another thing

[javierfg]

22 minutes ago, J-Dawg said:

Hay 2 cosas en juego. Toma una baraja de cartas. Uno se baraja al azar. Uno está barajado muy específicamente de una manera que solo encontrarías en la vida normal una vez cada luna azul

. Y para agregar a eso, ha sido barajado por los mejores conductistas humanos y psicólogos.

¿Ves cómo funciona?

Solo estamos aquí en esta tierra porque descendemos de generaciones de personas que eran buenas para evaluar el riesgo. Esa habilidad viene de observar el orden natural de las cosas, está en nuestra memoria celular.

A nadie le importa perder. Un paquete de cartas barajado normalmente el 99% del tiempo, tiene sentido lógico, las cartas salen en rayas, entrecortadas, todo con lo que hemos llegado a esperar de nuestras experiencias en la vida más los eones de conocimiento transmitidos a través de nuestra memoria celular.

Pero el mazo de cartas organizado por los mejores psicólogos del comportamiento, son los que no se encuentran en la naturaleza a menudo, si es que alguna vez para el 99,9% de las personas en la tierra. Los colores de las cartas aparecen de una manera que tiene poco o ningún sentido, y se hacen así a propósito. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBRB RBBBBBBBRRRR etc

(B-negro, R-rojo)

Por ejemplo, el sistema martingala. Si tiene suficiente dinero para duplicar su apuesta 7 veces, hay menos del 1% de probabilidad de que pierda. Deja que eso se hunda

Hay una falacia de los jugadores, y hay otra cosa

If you double your bet 7 times, you will win very little but 1/100 times  (approximately) you will lose everything...

 

I believe that the martingale is the "strategy" that has caused the most bankruptcies

 

[J-Dawg]

To summarize something that many people do not grasp about martingale (wikipidiea and the like have very in-depth analysis for any interested); Obviously all games on a casino are negative sum because of the house edge. So if we take traditional roulette as the example;

"In reality, the odds of a streak of 6 losses in a row are much higher than many people intuitively believe. Psychological studies have shown that since people know that the odds of losing 6 times in a row out of 6 plays are low, they incorrectly assume that in a longer string of plays the odds are also very low. In fact, while the chance of losing 6 times in a row in 6 plays is a relatively low 1.8% on a single-zero wheel, the probably of losing 6 times in a row (i.e. encountering a streak of 6 losses) at some point during a string of 200 plays is approximately 84%. Even if the gambler can tolerate betting ~1,000 times their original bet, a streak of 10 losses in a row has an ~11% chance of occurring in a string of 200 plays. Such a loss streak would likely wipe out the bettor, as 10 consecutive losses using the martingale strategy means a loss of 1,023x the original bet."


So that's the truth of it. Which I think most people can accept. What shocks the people is that literally every single person who has tried the martingale strategy on a game like Dice, have very quickly busted out within 20 games. That's just statistically improbable, that basically everyone, busts out the first time they attempt to deploy the strategy.