Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

Re: Gambler's Fallacy BUT...

Tags: spin number spins

Let me give a MUCH more interesting example. Based on a trend topic I saw here couple days ago. The chance of not hitting 8 numbers. I have reached 6 million Spins and the highest so far not to hit 8 numbers is 68 spins.

Let's say now that a guy keeps playing the numbers 2, 6, 14, 15, 23, 28, 32, 36. He keeps on betting them and keeps on missing all of them until he finally gets a hit at spin 68. (already a rare enough event based on what I first talked about)
Next to him another guy keeps tracking the numbers that come until there are left 8 numbers that has not been hit. After tracking 62 spins there are finally the last 8 numbers not being hit which as it turns out there are indeed the 2, 6, 14, 15, 23, 28, 32, 36. So now he starts betting them and after just 8 spins on spin 68 he also got the hit.

What benefit would the 2nd guy had if he had started betting right from spin 1? He got on board an already rare event at spin 62. Ηis progression was good enough to keep him going for 20+ spins. He started at spin 62 and he could go until spin 82. What are the chances that he would keep missing them for all 82? Once in some billions? (since we already explored that 68 missed times is already once in 5 millions)

The point? Why bet any numbers from start that could have turned out to be the very last to be hit? Why not use the already 62 spins passed and then start betting these last 8? He already has a 62 spins head start starting betting now. You mean the chance to be finally hit until spin 68 is the same as to be finally hit in spin 82? I don;t think so. I'm not speaking for individual spin by spin. In this example we speak about the same numbers form start to finish so you jump into the event. The odds are already behind it.

 I doubt to believe that after 62 missed spins there is still the same chance for these 8 numbers to reach 68 more misses because I just started now betting on them and past doesn't count (a total of 130 misses!!)



This post first appeared on Roulette Forum .CC - Index, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Re: Gambler's Fallacy BUT...

×

Subscribe to Roulette Forum .cc - Index

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×