A quick lesson, A question, Gambler's Fallacy...

https://effectiviology.com/gamblers-fallacy/

Please read. The experienced guys here probably all ready know.

Please watch 

The question:

We know that for many years, people who gamble have created this fallacy of pattern recognition. Or what they think is their recognition of such patterns, that really aren't patterns at all. Ya dig?

Not all gamblers think like this. Some may fall in and out of this kind of thinking. 

These are all psychological patterns that have been proven to affect a person's decision when it comes to gambling. 

So let's get to the question. Do the script folks fall into the Gambler's Fallacy? Or is this a psychological condition that is much worse, and should a new term be created for such a belief?

"The gambler’s fallacy is a cognitive bias, meaning that it’s a systematic pattern of deviation from rationality, which occurs due to the way people’s cognitive system works. It is primarily attributed to the expectation that even short sequences of outcomes will be highly representative of the process that generated them, and to the view of chance as a fair and self-correcting process."

"Fallacies stem from misconceptions of randomness. People apparently fail to appreciate the amount of “noise” (or variance) that can be introduced into a system by random effects and that in turn gives rise to the representativeness heuristic."

 Great quote here. Google heuristic if you don't know what it means.

School is in session 

“Fallacies stem from misconceptions of randomness”

Love this!!!

Unfortunately, it is mans ego which prevents him from seeing this truth 

why is regression to the mean a widely accepted fact, yet gamblers fallacy is a myth?  They seem to have some things in common.

Regression to the Mean is not a fact.  It is only a statistical tendency.  The tendency implies that more times you roll the die, the average value of all the rolls will approach 3.5.  It is typically thought of an asymptotic curve, however, that is largely dependant on sample size  Nor is there any guarantee that you ever actually hit the mean of 3.5.  If you have rolled the die 10 times, and all of them have been 4,5,6, then you would think that 1,2,3 would be a more common number going forward.  Its not.  It is still 100% random.  Each individual roll is still a 1 in 6 chance any number.

The number of data points is very significant.  Anyone familiar with Monte Carlo analysis knows that to produce a statistically significant Gaussian distribution, you should sample 10000 times, and build your Distribution off that.  At 10K die rolls, your "Regression to the Mean" curve will start to appear asymptotic.  However, no matter how close to 3.5 your average value has gone, Each individual roll is still a 1 in 6 chance any number. 

Sac - great post, but I doubt it will change anything.  I mean, even the dice follow a script. 

Very cool

@dyamarik

I'm hoping that the conversation will eventually evolve and gravitate to trends, and if they correspond with a systematic pattern. But do those patterns even matter if they are just a fallacy in our heads?

The whole script thing is another can of worms, even though I did pose the question. I think that there is a real epidemic we have here. To think that "life" or "sports" are staged. When this phenomenon first reared it's ugly head I thought it was just trolling. But it's now apparent that people believe in it whole heartedly, and with such conviction. 

It's as if people are just deflecting reason, not coping with reality. It's strange, it's sad, it's puzzling. 

That is how both science and investments work, but with sports gambling, there is an added element of humanity that makes hard to evolve. 

Its all about perception.  Three people can listen to a person talk about something influential (sales, scripted theories, politics, etc), and all 3 will take away something from that talk, and none of them will be identical.  The only thing that matters is the perception of the talk - the messenger had a point, but no one will ever take away exactly what that point was.  And sometimes one of those 3 perceptions gets some momentum.

next logical step is, Perception starts to become reality, esp. when you can find others who think like you (interweb, Covers.com, etc.).  It reinforces your own perception, and furthers it to reality in your own mind.  Cant prove that perception (or anyone of the three people's perception) is right or wrong, however, that is exactly what people do.  And have always done.

I can "prove" this by identifying that there are 5 major religions in the world, plus millions of other minor belief systems.  Each of the major 5 has similarities, but each is also distinctly different.  How is is possible that there are so many different beliefs and belief systems, and they are all completely accurate?  Esp. when many of them contradicts.  Yet billions people invest almost their entire emotional capitol in one of them, plus billions in actual monetary capital, but... 

How can they all be correct???  

@dyamarik

  you get it.

Confirmation bias is real.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out, interpret, judge and remember information so that it supports one's pre-existing views and ideas. Confirmation bias can make people less likely to engage with information which challenges their views.

Unfortunately, we are an extreme minority.  Good luck with all you gambling investments. 

Sounds a little like the theory behind CROWDCAPPING where they try to identify a large group of players along the time line, who are grossly under preforming the expected long term 50/50 expectation. Then they follow these players, as they regress upward toward the expected mean. Betting on the under performer to rise, is a better indicator than the over performer to fall toward the mean, as the over performer may be relying on information, to out perform the market.  The under performer  is probably based on randomness, which will eventually move toward the median in a efficient marketplace such as sports betting,  Could that be the future of sports handicapping?

Always Looking For The Angle, 

CrowdCapper Out

I don't understand why anyone who thinks it's fixed would ever be a gambler. 

Deflection. Blame the fix instead of thy self for losing one's own money. 

They don’t. Have you ever seen scripted theater post a play?

Good post Sac

I am no mathematician, but it seems perfectly possible to me that if the odds of winning the Powerball were one in 200 million, you could play the lottery a trillion or quadrillion times in a row and most likely never win once. Each time the odds would simply be so astronomically against you as to be tantamount to zero.

He means take chargers today. 

“When people feel threatened and out of control, it’s natural to want to feel more control and bring order to the randomness by resorting to conspiracy theories,” says John Cook, PhD, founder of the website Skeptical Science and co-author of “The Conspiracy Theory Handbook.”

Pointless psycho babble.

Yes, there are distinct patterns. There are some that entirely indicate who will win. 

Sometimes your logic is defeated by ethereal and esoteric happenings. 

Numbers are more than math. Numerology.

"Yes, there are distinct patterns. There are some that entirely indicate who will win."

I'll be waiting for those patiently