I flipped 100 coins

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post pokey

[/ QUOTE ]

[PartysOver]

Nielso,

You are not God's gift to SSNL.

Here are attributes of GOOD posts/posters:
1) Brings up unique topics of discussion.
2) Rephrases old topics in an easier to understand way.
3) Funny/ otherwise entertaining/intesting.

Examples:
"Another way to look at playing out of the bb" (2)
"Theory: bluffing frequencies" (1)

Bad posts:
"I flipped 100 coins and (poorly) explained gambler's fallacy"
Good post:
"Let's look into Gambler's Fallacy and what it means to SSNL using an adequate sample and relating it to multiple aspects of poker"

Bad post:
"Vaguely explaining generalized steps of learning and development"
Good post:
"Explaining how you can take these steps to learn and develop specific areas of your SSNL game."

Nielso, I'm not sure why I havn't ignored you yet. I don't think you add much to SSNL but I believe you're a very intelligent person. I would like to see your posts tie more into specific poker examples instead of being too broad to incite good discussion.

[AllIn3High]

[manupod]

hahahahahahahahahhhhaahahahahahaahahahahahahahahah

[Trikkur]

So I've been thinking about this whole gambler's fallacy argument and it's actually kind of weird to think about. Let's say we decide to flip a coin X times. Well the highest probability out comes is that from 0 to X, the coin will come up an even amount of heads and tails. Yet if we look at point Y which is between 0 and X and see that at that particular time there has been 10 more heads than tails, we are somehow going to always be 10 behind. But we weren't ever actually looking at point Y until after we completed the flips, so that statistic is irrelevant. So honestly, you will see streaks of heads, but you will also see streaks of tails. People can't really analyze that data at point Y because its honestly not relevant.

It's almost a support for the gambler's fallacy, but probably not how people actually use it. Yes if you are measure from point 0 to point X, you should get close to evening out and yes there will be large streaks of one or another, but that information is actually irrelevant to the "experiment" and we've already decided that from 0 to X it should be even.

I'm not sure if I explained this properly, but it's kind of bugging me.

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
This post is much more important than people seem to realize.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are levelling or being levelled.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm sure most of us have heard of the "Gambler's Fallacy." It basically means that a little bit of statistics is a dangerous thing. People know that a "fair coin" will flip heads as often as tails. So when they watch a coin flip heads-heads-heads-heads-heads they KNOW that the coin is "overdue" for tails, and they begin to expect that tails will come more often for awhile to "catch up," because that's what coins do. As savvy gamblers we should know that coins, dice, and cards have no memory. They don't know that they've cheated you the last six times, and they don't feel that they owe you a win now. They ALSO don't know that they've let you suck out the last six times, so they're not going to punish you this time. Each coin flip is an independent event, and should be judged on its own merits, rather than on the past history.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people think that the OP is a bad post because 90% of posters on this board do, indeed, understand the gambler's fallacy, and in any case the post doesn't really explain it well. You do explain it well.

[ QUOTE ]

Luckily, ordinary gamblers are NOT savvy about statistics. Case in point: several years ago, casinos began adding a counter to their roulette wheels that showed the last dozen or so spins of that particular wheel: what the number was and whether it was red or black. After putting in those counters, the casino profits from the roulette tables increased over 25% basically overnight, as people began betting on the roulette wheels that were "due" to hit a particular number or color.


[/ QUOTE ]

This does not follow for me. You're claiming that the house edge is greater when all players bet the same color? How is this so (I speak from ignorance about how roulette works)?

Otherwise, this makes no sense. Profits should not go up because even if all gambler's are following a gambler's fallacy strategy, their true odds remain the same.

That is, if it comes up red 10 times and I pick black because "it's due", I'll be right 50% of the time, just as I would be if I picked randomly. Forcing me to adopt a gambler's fallacy strategy never worsens my odds.

[Unknown Soldier]

more people will bet i think bilbo. edge certainly won't change

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
more people will bet i think bilbo. edge certainly won't change

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean there are people at a table that don't bet on each turn? Or that they will bet more $$? Is it like blackjack, where you decide how much to bet?

that would explain thinks. If an idiot usually bets $5 more or less randomly but will bet $100 on black when red comes up 5 times in a row ("it's due"), then increasing this tendencie would be +EV for the casino...

[snakekilla88]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Luckily, ordinary gamblers are NOT savvy about statistics. Case in point: several years ago, casinos began adding a counter to their roulette wheels that showed the last dozen or so spins of that particular wheel: what the number was and whether it was red or black. After putting in those counters, the casino profits from the roulette tables increased over 25% basically overnight, as people began betting on the roulette wheels that were "due" to hit a particular number or color.


[/ QUOTE ]

This does not follow for me. You're claiming that the house edge is greater when all players bet the same color? How is this so (I speak from ignorance about how roulette works)?

Otherwise, this makes no sense. Profits should not go up because even if all gambler's are following a gambler's fallacy strategy, their true odds remain the same.

That is, if it comes up red 10 times and I pick black because "it's due", I'll be right 50% of the time, just as I would be if I picked randomly. Forcing me to adopt a gambler's fallacy strategy never worsens my odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

House profits went up since more people began to play roulette. Since they believed the counter next to the wheel was actually an important factor in their decision making.

[Unknown Soldier]

casino gamblers run on emotion, if they think they can beat the system they'll jump at the chance.

More people will be attracted to the roulette table, and as an average will probably bet more.