Bakara-chanOh!Live roulette has 3 consecutive multiples of 6.From here, if you bet on 3 columns other than multiples of 2, you can earn in seconds.
Moreover, since there are 8 consecutive reds so far, if you bet on black in parallel, you will definitely win.I'll laugh
2 minutes later
Bakara-chanIt's not a fool! It's strange that multiples of 3 are 12 consecutive times! ?? ??Moreover, 14 blacks will not appear in a row! ?? ??All the money has been blown away! ?? ??Hey, I got angry.You really made me angry about your sister! ?? ?? ??
RurekoIt is a gambler's fallacy to think that "it is unlikely that continuous results will be produced in a row".
Bakara-chanWhat is it ...
What is the gambler's fallacy?
Gambler's fallacyA gambler's fallacy is a phenomenon in which, when the frequency of an event is high during a certain period, the probability of that event occurring in subsequent trials decreases (or conversely, the probability of an event occurring). It is the fallacy of believing that if the frequency of occurrence is low, the probability of occurrence of the event is high).Such an idea would be false if the observed results were truly random and each trial was an independent stochastic process.
This fallacy can arise in a variety of situations, but is especially common in gambling events. Commonly used to describe the phenomenon (see below) that occurred at the Monte Carlo Casino in 1913.[1]From thatMonte Carlo FallacyAlso known as (Monte Carlo fallacy).
Reference link:https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AE%E3%83%A3%E3%83%B3%E3%83%96%E3%83%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%81%AE%E8%AA%A4%E8%AC%AC
RurekoIf you want to know more about gambler's fallacy, read it on the wiki.In this article, I will explain with reference to common examples.
Bakara-chanWell, in other words, it was inevitable that I lost ...?
RurekoBakara-chan said, "Because black is continuous, the probability that red will appear next time will be higher." "Because multiples of 3 are continuous, the probability that multiples of 3 will be continuous next time will be low." It's unlikely that the same result will be consecutive, "and you bet on a non-consecutive place and lost brilliantly.
Bakara-chanThat's right (crying)
Because, stochastically, the probability of continuity does not decrease.
The probability of 10 consecutive blacks is about 1024/1, and the probability of 3 consecutive multiples of 12 is 531441/1?
That's not the probability that pompoms will come.
RurekoThat idea is a fallacy, a mistake.Certainly the probability of continuous black is 1024/1.However, in the case of roulette, which is an independent event, the probability that black will appear next and the probability that red will appear next is 50% no matter how many consecutive results the previous result is. (* Strictly speaking, there is 0, so 48.6%)
To put it simply, the idea that "because we could observe continuous results, it is easy to get the opposite result" is wrong with roulette of independent events.
It doesn't matter if it's a roulette wheel of an independent event that it's likely to happen because the previous result was like this.
That's why it's an illusion that video roulette and live roulette are completely meaningless and easy to hit.
There is nothing there that raises the odds.It's just a relief.
A famous example is the event that occurred on August 1913, 8 in a roulette game at the Monte Carlo Casino, where the ball went black 18 times in a row. The probability that the ball lands in the same color (red or black) 26 times in a row is (26)26-1That is, once in 6660 million times, which is a very rare event. A gambler who mistakenly inferred that "roulette is causing an imbalance in randomness, followed by a series of reds," has lost millions of francs bet other than black. " circle.
Bakara-chanWhat a mess ...
RurekoThis doesn't apply to non-independent situations such as card games such as blackjack using cards or man-made ones.
The tactics to increase the winning percentage by counting use this effect.
Bakara-chanHmmm, then bet on the other side, is it better to chase the vine?
RurekoThe wiki says, "If you flip a coin toss in a row, the gambler may decide that you're more likely to flip. This is a reasonable conclusion, keeping in mind that the coin may not be fair. Yes, this is not a fallacy. Gamblers believe that there is no reason to turn a bet on the table, believing that it is easy to flip. However, the series of trials has a memory of past results and future results. It is an error to think that there is a tendency to be favorable or unfavorable. "As it is, it can be said that proactive thinking is not an error.
So unless there's something rational, it's just a belief.
As with the RSI of FX, Japanese people use it in reverse, but in foreign countries it is common to use it as an index of order.
Whether it's a mistake or not, is it actually winning?That's right.
Conclusion: Can it be applied to roulette?
Bakara-chanI knew it was irrelevant, even if there were continuous results for the time being.
Then I wonder if I can win if I do the opposite?
RurekoWell ... I don't think you can always win.
In the case of roulette, the probability does not converge without an unrealistic number of trials, so it can only be said that it is luck, but in my experience, betting where it is coming rather than betting where it is not coming. I think it's better to do it.
Bias will definitely occur in the short spans we observe.If there is a bias that comes out or a bias that does not come out, I think that the bias that comes out is easier to hit.
However, even if you keep betting only on the hot number, there are many cases where you will not hit even once at the moment you bet and it will be a cold number, so it can not be said unconditionally.
When trying to chase the vine, there are 12 consecutive teleco tapes (red and black alternate).
There is absolutely no such thing, so you have to find your own law and fight as a de facto strategy.
Bakara-chanWell, in retrospect, how much money has melted because of this fallacy ...
From now on, I'll try to avoid any errors.
RurekoI have to fight after knowing that there is absolutely no way to keep winning.
There is a way to make a profit after cutting the loss, so let's make sure that there is no mistake this time.
Bonus Possible solutions
Gambler's fallacy is a deep-seated cognitive bias that is extremely difficult to overcome.Education about the nature of randomness has not always proven to be effective in reducing or eliminating these signs of error. In a 1967 Beach and Swensson study, subjects often cut a pile of drawn cards, draw one of them to show it to the subject, and then predict the shape drawn on the next drawn card. Instructed.Subjects were divided into two groups, one group informed of the existence and nature of the gambler's fallacy and explicitly instructed to make predictions independent of previous card order.No control was given this information. The response styles of the two groups are similar, indicating that subjects in both groups made predictions based on the length of consecutive appearances of the same figure.This led to the conclusion that it was not enough to inform about randomness to mitigate gambler's fallacy.
A person's susceptibility to gambler's fallacy may decrease with age. The 1997 Fischbein and Schnarch study surveyed five groups of fifth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, and college students specializing in teaching mathematics.None of the subjects had prior education on probability.The question was, "Ronnie tossed three times and the table came out three times. Ronnie intends to toss another coin. What is the possibility of the toss appearing the fourth time?"As a result, 5% of 7th graders, 9% of 11th graders, 5% of 3th graders, and 3% of 1th graders answered that "it is smaller than the possibility of getting out of the way". No one answered. Fischbein and Schnarch theorized that the tendency to rely on cognitive bias, such as representative heuristics, can be overcome with age.
As another possible solution, Gestalt psychologists Roney and Trick suggest that this fallacy may be eliminated as a result of grouping.When a future event, such as a coin toss, is described as part of a sequence, no matter how arbitrary, one automatically considers events related to past events, leading to gambler's fallacy.This fallacy can be greatly reduced if one considers all events to be independent.
Comment
Comment list (1)
Awesome post.