OK I know this is a touchy subject, but I want to hit it(especially as Im outraged but agreed reading article).

http://www.pokerlistings.com/strateg...mblers-fallacy


So basically the GF(gamblers fallacy)
Is saying to yourself that well I haven't hit this flush,(draw,setfullhouse"hand in general") so it is more likely the more I have the draw(separate hands).

Personally I believe it's true, "that it does improve". But only improve the statistical value of hitting the flush. Not saying you should call more often or raise more just on this rule alone. I mean depending how its put is the main question. As gamblers this rule (GF) rules our mind, on some scale or another.


So what do you think? Does it improve your odds of getting a draw when you miss, don't play ect. And so, how will/does it effect your game?


Sent from my N9136 using Tapatalk

It does not increase your odds when you miss. Each draw is a separate occurrence with no memory.

What I'm saying though, is that you have a certain percentage outs, with a certain percentage of hitting that hand a certain amount of time. So calculating a 4% draw mean you should hit it 4% of the time. "Right"?! I mean that what a "draw" is. Or is this not so much a mechanical probability scenario?

And technically odds have filled memory( to be a smart ass).

Sent from my N9136 using Tapatalk

In the long run the odds will what the are supposed to be. But that doesn't mean that you have "make up" for runs that are skewed.

Example: You flip a fair coin 50 times. All fifty times, it comes up heads. In the long run, flipping that coin will become 50/50.

But that doesn't mean you "make up" for the 50 heads by having 50 extra flips that come up tails.

It just means that after, say 500,000,000 flips, those 50 extra heads become statistically insignificant.

25,000,050:25,000,000 = .4999995:5000005 = 50:50

Well to hit on the coin, doesn't the saying go "if the variance of a coin hits more then 13o/50/50, the game/coin is rigged."? ^ meaning it can be 13 above or 13 below expected odds before it becomes a matter of being rigged. So, just given that fact if you go and don't make a flush out of 100 times its "really odd".

The main point of me bringing it up is I can get how it can turn into a problem. Thinking each time you miss you have an extra + chance of hitting. More often with other table games then poker though. "But thinking" and acting on that fallacy is what changes the successfull player from the non.

In my opinion, although I may be to deep.

Sent from my N9136 using Tapatalk

Is there a psychological fallacy that states, "If you ask a question often enough you will eventually get the answer you want to hear?"

There you go, that is why it is indeed a fallacy. If you do not ever act on it, you can tolerate the presence of the fallacy in your mind. The final step is to eliminate the fallacy entirely, since you rightly intend to never act upon it. You have answered your own question, fwiw.

I see this is taking a tragic turn out of context. But yeah, your right!!

Sent from my N9136 using Tapatalk

Hi Kurt:

This statement is technically wrong. All you know is that your expectation for future events is to conform to the odds. It has no bearing on past events. So for instance, let’s say you flip a fair coin and the first five flips are heads. Then for your next let’s say 10,000 flips you expect 5,000 heads. But for your first 10,005 flips, five of which you’ve already done, your expectation is 5,005 heads. Yet the odds for 10,005 flips would produce an expectation of 5,002.5 heads. See the difference?

Again, this is slightly wrong. Flipping that coin does not become fifty/fifty as your example shows. You can only expect the future to be fifty/fifty, even though because of variance it’s unlikely to be exactly fifty/fifty.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Allluck:

The right way to look at this is to first compute the probability of missing the flush 100 times in a row. Then compare this number to your estimate that you’re being cheated. Now if your estimate of you being cheated, even though it’s a small number, is higher than your computation of missing all those flushes, then you’re probably being cheated. If not, then you’re probably being unlucky.

Best wishes,
Mason

My 2 cents:

Anybody who watches a roulette wheel come up black 200 times in a row and then puts a sizable portion of their net worth on red does not understand how these things work.

Hi Mason,

Thanks for the clarification.

Well in the time(samples) I would need to clarify cheating I would be rolled. So hopefully by then I would have gotten the hint the game wasn't in my favour.

I love how you answer my question by not answering my question.

Best wishes,

Sent from my N9136 using Tapatalk

LMAO, alright I wish I didn't know this...BUT that is when you want to.


You ever see that third installment of the robbery movies something to do with oceans. I think it was the 11th, version or something...

Sent from my N9136 using Tapatalk

Hence my comment above about the "13o variance" on the quarter.

Sent from my N9136 using Tapatalk

Gambler's Fallacy arises from the incorrect assumption that every single individual will realize the true EV of their wagers over the long run.

It is not true.

There will be some of us who will run below EV over our entire life.

Human lifespan is no match to the true long run. You are not guaranteed to realize the EV of your wagers over your lifetime.

Without GF there would be no highly profitable casinos.

People pour their money into 1:10,000,000 odds all the time. Who gives a **** about gamblers falacy when people think that all they have to do is get lucky. Hominids are stupid, you don't need to think very deeply about it.

Why is this a touchy subject? Doesn't matter if you believe it is true, it's still a fallacy. If you believe it you're wrong, it's just that easy. Case closed.

The irony is casinos are full of one set of people believing that a slot or roulette number is "hot" . And simultaneously there is another set of people believing that a slot or roulette number is "due" because it hasn't hit for ages
I think it's a combination of 2 mindsets
1) the casual "gambler" who projects a lot of meaning and human qualities onto a random outcome . Watch deal or no deal for 10 minutes and you see the amount of c**p they can talk about picking boxes with random amounts inside
2) The gambling addiction which encourages people to think irrationally that they are involved in some longterm pattern . So if they are winning they might keep playing because they think it's the start of a big winning streak and if they are losing they don't stop because they convince themselves it's due to hit soon.. even though their rational mind knows this is false .. add to that the fact that it hurts to walk away with a loss , it's actually less painful for the gambler to stay gambling and losing than it is to walk away with a loss and that's why gambling can be so dangerous