Poker was a bad example for the first one because as an aggressive raiser, you build a certain image, meaning that the events aren’t exactly statistically independent other than the cards themselves
Ypu want to act more aggressive as a chip leader because you have more chips to lose/win than most of the other players atleast in a tournament environment @matthewgamble95
OP is correct. The fallacy may be present in the minds of the opponent, and hero can exploit that by "playing the rush," even tough the rush isn't really happening. But the opponents will eventually catch on. So hero needs to be ready to shut down when caught speeding, or go for maximum exploit with a nutted hand. The tournament example cited is a different situation. There hero is leveraging the fact that shorter stacks are afraid of being eliminated and using ICM to his advantage. That's not a fallacy. Both hero and villains are correctly responding to the leverage of the larger stack.
The hot hand fallacy is kinda more complicated in poker tho because the psychological effect of it being held by your opponents can help you bluff hands Maybe this particular fallacy is more appropriate for blackjack or something
Neglect of probability overlooks a critical factor. How meaningful is the loss compared to how meaningful a win would be. Betting a few dollars on a lottery ticket makes zero difference in the life of the person buying the ticket. Winning changes their life forever. And even though they won't win, they get the value of their few bucks back in entertainment.
@@mr_khatkar990 unless you compulsively buy dozens of tickets every single day, i doubt it'd go past a thousand dollars over the course of a few years (2 3$ tickets every week amounts to $1.440 in 5 years), and that's usually not enough to bankrupt an entire family. of course, it's still a 24$/month money sink and nowhere near guaranteed to pay out, so a sane human being should treat it as more of an entertainment/"what if" thing to burn some spare change, not as your plan A B and C to improve your financial situation.
I must thank you for adding some useful knowledge to my feed. Although YT these days is filled with stupid shorts, it’s good to see creators like you! Keep it up 👍🏻
I partake in pretty much all of these, not because I actually believe the fallacy but because it’s what makes gambling fun. I say one out loud and if the bet wins I get to call myself a psychic genius.
I always feel afraid when "hot hand fallacy" comes in as a thought bc I pulled some blackjacks in a row, so when I start thinking that I know I need to leave
Poker, horse racing, blackjack (3-2 without continuous shuffler) and sports betting are not "gambling games" in that a high level of competency can be attained in each one, and a skilled player can extract a profit long term. This is inferred at 5:35, and to me does not seem to be a "fallacy." All other games (roulette, baccarat, craps, slots, variants of traditional blackjack such as free bet, switch, Spanish 21 etc. and "minor" or "carnival" games) are indeed "gambling" games because they are games of pure luck, despite what some would tell you.
Each spin on roulette wheel is independent from each other but say its been 6 reds in a row if you think that black is due its actually not but your just playing the odds if you bet black
Everything was well explained, BUT Poker is the wrong example for the Hot Hand Fallacy. If I have most of the chips, in a closed game of course, I have to bet bigger and more often. It’s not because I am on a streak and will get lucky more often, but rather that if I play more hands (which I can afford) I have a higher chance of getting the nuts so I then can bet big. Same goes for investing, why are all billionaires not liquid, they invest in future value, this is only possible if you part take in this risk. (Of course there are other components such as inflation etc.) But ofcourse if I play the slot machine and raise my bet because I just won, this is just gambling.
0:33 Technically if you were perfect at physics and could execute things perfectly you could control the outcome of a dice roll. Rolling dice is technically deterministic its just a chaotic system
Just came to think about this.. wouldn't quantum physics be an issue here? You know, the thing that goes something like "the more accurate you know the position, the less accurate you can know the speed and trajectory, and vice verca" 😅
@@dantespekken3549 haha, thanks for clearing any doubts 😅 (Although it honestly wouldn't have been an issue if it was the case 😋) Thanks for the engagement, really appreciate it!!
Those who believes that the "hot hand fallacy" doesn't apply to poker have never sit on a PLO table when the stupid donk win two hands in a row with trash and starts raising with trash or they are the donk ones. In any case you must apply some awareness to yourself, we always tend to be more confident in our cards after winning some hands in a row in poker and the AT-A9os utg is more appealing now that used to be when we first had it the hour before and don't have it in our range in this position.
I’ve seen it happen after people raise all in with draws and get there by the river. If it happens 2-3 times in a short sequence of time they start thinking that they can’t lose
I watch Poker players change seat when a winning player leaves the table. They want that person's lucky seat because they "weren't getting any good cards"
i see what you mean about loss aversion but, in terms of poker, i think most pro players end up folding like 70-80% of hands. i love your style of content btw, as others have said it's so straight to the point which is a nice change in pace
@@ExplainedWithPaint in my opinion gambler's fallacy but all of them are good and explained nicely, i actually thought you had over 100k-200k subs. you deserve more keep it up
To be honest, it's easy to control the outcome of the dice, with a good percentage. But well, definitely not at the casino with people watching you, so I'll accept it 😄
In probability, each event is independent, meaning the odds don't change based on previous outcomes. For example, in roulette, the chance of landing on red or black is always the same for each spin, regardless of past results. Even if you see 7 reds in a row, it might seem rare, but it doesn't affect the odds of the next spin. Each spin is independent, with no connection to the previous ones. The sequence of reds is just part of the randomness. For instance, the probability of getting red 3 times in a row is (0.5)^3 = 12.5%, and 4 times in a row is (0.5)^4 = 6.25%. However, once you have already seen 3 reds, those outcomes are certain and part of history. The probability of getting red on the next spin remains 50%, just like any other individual spin.
@@ExplainedWithPaint but you basically just explained it. Each outcome continues with the power of 4, 5, 6 etc. so if you calculate to the power of 7, such an event is so unlikely that you should almost always bet on the opposite of whatever colour has achieved such a milestone. Yes although each event is individual and still the same statistic, the probability is much lower, therefore would it not be LOGICAL in those rare circumstances?
if i told you that the algorithms that everyone is afraid of are real and are allowed in any casino in the US (online and off) would you change some of the thoughts you had on people who think they are being cheated
@@ExplainedWithPaint Well, the thing is, that every single thing a gambler says, cant always be a fallacy. As in a broken clock is at least right twice a day... Gamblers are impulsive and (rarely) care about thinking about what they are getting themselves into before they do it. Did you know that most modern roulette wheels have a mechanism called random rotor speed, or have mechanisms that allow them to randomize various factors related to the wheel which essentially changes the original path of the ball had it only been a dealer and the wheel speed at first. The random rotor speed "imperceptibly" changes the wheel speed in a random manner in order to stop people from coming into the casinos with a camera that can clock a wheel, and thats also online roulette as well. I can go on for years. Its all cheating to me.
@@ExplainedWithPaint I have a gambler mindset. But I'm not addicted. Rule number 1: bet only what you can lose. Nowadays I play Poker, Lottery and do Buy & Hold in the stock market. This info is good for me to know my mindset even better, avoid traps. Greetings from Brasil! Thanks.
This is so wrong. "Due to come" is a thing. Flip a coin. Yes, each flip is independent of the others, but the odds of going 5 heads in a row vs. 10 heads in a row is much different. At a certain point it is mathematically the best decision to switch colors on a roulette wheel.
Can't remember the academic term if this, but it's been proven that we typically experience a loss of e.g, 100 bucks twice as bad as a win of the same amount. We're pretty silly, humans 😂
Even though all the events are independent of each other in most casino games, wouldn’t it still be a higher theoretical probably to bet on tails on a coin flip when heads had previous been flipped 6 times before because of how the odds have to even themselves out in the long run?
@@ExplainedWithPaint That's incorrect. If the probability of heads or tails is 50/50, then if you have 1,000 flips, you should have around 500 heads and 500 tails. So if the first 500 flips have all been heads (which is incredibly unlikely), then the next flip theoretically is more likely to be tails (and most of the next 500 should be tails). Each flip is not directly affected by any previous flip. But if you accept that it's overall 50/50, then the pattern will eventually adjust to reflect that 50/50. Gamblers betting on games that are or close to 50/50, such as baccarat and roulette, often use this strategy (called the Martingale system).
@@poshbo you can call it a system or a strategy, you are still describing a bias assuming that future probability has any relation with the past. For any set of "future 1000 flips", you are correct, the expectation is 50/50. This won't change regardless of the past. You could say the same for a future set of 500 flips, you can expect 250 of each. The next flips are not theoretically more likely to be tails, regardless of the past. You are simply falling for the same bias as the person behind the same comment. Try posting this thread in chatGPT and see what you get out :)
@@ExplainedWithPaint not sure how ChatGPT will help. But like I said, the previous flip doesn't directly affect the next flip. But if you accept the 50/50 overall trend, then you'd expect the trend to start to adjust. I'll describe it this way. Starting from now, I will flip the coin 1,000 times. Surely we agree that it should be roughly 500 tails, 500 heads right? But if the first 500 flips are all heads, surely we agree that the following 500 flips are more likely to mostly be tails right? It's not a guarantee that the 501st flip is tails, but it's just that flips 501 to 1000 overall are more likely to be more tails than heads. Surely you agree with this right?
So the illusion of control isn’t actually a illusion in some games. In craps the way you roll the dice can actually affect the number you roll based on grip,force thrown, and how you hold the dice. There is actually several famous craps gambler I recommend to explore this subject further
While grip and force can influence the roll, the game's inherent randomness typically dominates. Some famous gamblers claim to control dice outcomes, but these claims should be viewed skeptically. The law of large numbers means that some will have lucky streaks, allowing them to claim skill.
So as far as Craps go there is indeed a world where someone could master throwing the dice the exact same way everytime albeit it is extremely uncommon and hard.
The first two things stated were already wrong. Other players are put off by certain attitudes and that will drive your success .Then You stated players believe something< Yes they do ,and when You influence how they feel , it helps You to win.< just by pressure alone.I win by faking, bluffing, and by pure BS attitude.
I think your wrong about craps and poker as they is the odds are more in your favor statistically, if that’s the case then practicing strategy at these would be your best bet to win.
Poker yes you can win in the long run if you're highly skilled and knowledgeable of the game and there is little to no rake at the games you play, even 3:2 Blackjack is beatable if you count cards. Craps I don't believe is beatable though
@@strathattack4325 it’s about what you believe, look it up and what tables or games have the best odds! I’ve played everything and gambled for 20 years. Craps have variables that you can use math to better your chances based on if your grip is consistent, now you factor in how the tables are different so make sure you know your table! After that there’s different sets that if you throw 100 times the same set you’ll start to see what hits, and if there is a high frequency of numbers wouldn’t betting on those numbers increase your chances? It’s not option based for me I’ve played with craps teams and seen people far better then me, come in and win 1-2k in 30 min and dip. Hitting the same exact numbers 6-10 times then you press the first few times and make money and take your money down and leave.
Blatant anti-gambling propaganda.
Ssssh, Not so loud! 🤫
Oh how terrible
Casinos are really trying hard to get people to stop gambling. Makes you think…
Paid by the big anti-win
Poker was a bad example for the first one because as an aggressive raiser, you build a certain image, meaning that the events aren’t exactly statistically independent other than the cards themselves
Fair point
I think most people act more aggressively though believing that they are running hot and will hit a good hand, in this regard it’s independent
Ypu want to act more aggressive as a chip leader because you have more chips to lose/win than most of the other players atleast in a tournament environment @matthewgamble95
OP is correct. The fallacy may be present in the minds of the opponent, and hero can exploit that by "playing the rush," even tough the rush isn't really happening. But the opponents will eventually catch on. So hero needs to be ready to shut down when caught speeding, or go for maximum exploit with a nutted hand. The tournament example cited is a different situation. There hero is leveraging the fact that shorter stacks are afraid of being eliminated and using ICM to his advantage. That's not a fallacy. Both hero and villains are correctly responding to the leverage of the larger stack.
The "Hot hand fallacy fallacy". The false belief that your opponent is just raising because their last couple of hands were successful.
somebodies mad they didn't hit the jackpot
I'm just about to get it though, promise
Lost? I call it learning experience.
Addiction? I call it dedication.
Fallacy? That's what "they" want you to believe
The hot hand fallacy is kinda more complicated in poker tho because the psychological effect of it being held by your opponents can help you bluff hands
Maybe this particular fallacy is more appropriate for blackjack or something
yeah, totally agree. Think the blackjack case is more "accurate" than poker
Quite true .
What I absolutely love about this video is that it wastes 0 time, gets quickly to the point. Really appreciate that, its amazing.
comments like these mean the world. thanks a tonne!
Neglect of probability overlooks a critical factor. How meaningful is the loss compared to how meaningful a win would be. Betting a few dollars on a lottery ticket makes zero difference in the life of the person buying the ticket. Winning changes their life forever. And even though they won't win, they get the value of their few bucks back in entertainment.
But those small bets over the period of long time can built to a huge number
This is exactly why people make insurance, despite being technically a minus ev proposition
@@mr_khatkar990 unless you compulsively buy dozens of tickets every single day, i doubt it'd go past a thousand dollars over the course of a few years (2 3$ tickets every week amounts to $1.440 in 5 years), and that's usually not enough to bankrupt an entire family.
of course, it's still a 24$/month money sink and nowhere near guaranteed to pay out, so a sane human being should treat it as more of an entertainment/"what if" thing to burn some spare change, not as your plan A B and C to improve your financial situation.
>Be me
>Loses it all at the casino
>Makes 7 minute video about every gambling fallacy
>Will go back tomorrow
>Be me
>I haven't learned anything
Liked because it wasted zero time
Thanks for the kind comment :)
I have never felt so personally attacked in such a comprehensive* way in a single video 😭
now, run to your favorite casino and prove me wrong, my child! 🪙🪙
These are all just the result of having a winner's mindset. I don't see the problem.
I must thank you for adding some useful knowledge to my feed. Although YT these days is filled with stupid shorts, it’s good to see creators like you! Keep it up 👍🏻
So happy to hear you liked it! Will continue doing my best! 💪
I partake in pretty much all of these, not because I actually believe the fallacy but because it’s what makes gambling fun. I say one out loud and if the bet wins I get to call myself a psychic genius.
Makes you think, if it wasn't fun, the casinos would struggle to stay afloat 😅
I always feel afraid when "hot hand fallacy" comes in as a thought bc I pulled some blackjacks in a row, so when I start thinking that I know I need to leave
Haha, that's the best strategy.
You mean kissing my ring, then touching my right, then left knee and turning around through my right shoulder doesn't give extra odds to win?
Oh, no no, that still works! See you at the casino!
Poker, horse racing, blackjack (3-2 without continuous shuffler) and sports betting are not "gambling games" in that a high level of competency can be attained in each one, and a skilled player can extract a profit long term. This is inferred at 5:35, and to me does not seem to be a "fallacy." All other games (roulette, baccarat, craps, slots, variants of traditional blackjack such as free bet, switch, Spanish 21 etc. and "minor" or "carnival" games) are indeed "gambling" games because they are games of pure luck, despite what some would tell you.
Each spin on roulette wheel is independent from each other but say its been 6 reds in a row if you think that black is due its actually not but your just playing the odds if you bet black
Exactly, no outcome is "due", ever
Everything was well explained, BUT Poker is the wrong example for the Hot Hand Fallacy.
If I have most of the chips, in a closed game of course, I have to bet bigger and more often. It’s not because I am on a streak and will get lucky more often, but rather that if I play more hands (which I can afford) I have a higher chance of getting the nuts so I then can bet big.
Same goes for investing, why are all billionaires not liquid, they invest in future value, this is only possible if you part take in this risk. (Of course there are other components such as inflation etc.)
But ofcourse if I play the slot machine and raise my bet because I just won, this is just gambling.
Absolutely! Guess the poker example is a bit "generic situation" here :)
did you know that shitting your pants right before spinning increases your chance of winning?
Sounds plausible
Instructions unclear, I used all of these and am now a Vegas sewers rat-person
just one more bet, and you'll be back at the top!
Watching this increased my EV and decreased my risk of ruin
still negative EV though, I presume? 😜
0:33 Technically if you were perfect at physics and could execute things perfectly you could control the outcome of a dice roll. Rolling dice is technically deterministic its just a chaotic system
Just came to think about this.. wouldn't quantum physics be an issue here? You know, the thing that goes something like "the more accurate you know the position, the less accurate you can know the speed and trajectory, and vice verca" 😅
@@ExplainedWithPaint I don’t think hiesenberg’s uncertainty principle applies to dice 🤣
Well you said perfect at physics, so i went quantum right away 😂
Nah but for real, 99.99999% of gamblers do quit before they hit it big, its confirmed
Most people just don't understand that the only thing between them and a million dollars is trying a bit harder!
What a banger!
Keep the hard work bud ❤
Thanks 🔥
If you quit gambling the odds of you winning are 0. Anyways momma didn't raise no quitter 😎
Way to embrace that negative EV! 😎 Go get 'em!
There seems to be a lot of overlap between some of these falacies
oh yeah, for sure, they're not exactly MECE, if that's what you were expecting 😅
Haha, sure. It wasn't meant as a criticism of your work to be clear.
@@dantespekken3549 haha, thanks for clearing any doubts 😅 (Although it honestly wouldn't have been an issue if it was the case 😋)
Thanks for the engagement, really appreciate it!!
Those who believes that the "hot hand fallacy" doesn't apply to poker have never sit on a PLO table when the stupid donk win two hands in a row with trash and starts raising with trash or they are the donk ones.
In any case you must apply some awareness to yourself, we always tend to be more confident in our cards after winning some hands in a row in poker and the AT-A9os utg is more appealing now that used to be when we first had it the hour before and don't have it in our range in this position.
As a dealer for a casino. You see this everyday and it’s sometimes annoying lol
haha, that's so funny to hear!
I never met a poker player who believed in the hot hand idea. Blackjack players, dice players, roulette players, slot players, yes. Poker, no.
I’ve seen it happen after people raise all in with draws and get there by the river. If it happens 2-3 times in a short sequence of time they start thinking that they can’t lose
I watch Poker players change seat when a winning player leaves the table. They want that person's lucky seat because they "weren't getting any good cards"
i see what you mean about loss aversion but, in terms of poker, i think most pro players end up folding like 70-80% of hands. i love your style of content btw, as others have said it's so straight to the point which is a nice change in pace
Thanks for the comment boycathumper 🤗
I believe in all of these.
You're gonna be rich!
These effects are either non confirmed (don't exist) or are explained differently.
Like "I have more money now, I can bet more".
sure bud
@@ExplainedWithPaint you mindlessly copy pasted those "facts" and really think that's how the world is, lol
Well put. I'm a slot playing fool but, I have lived and learned,,, yup
this opened my eyes a lot
what was the biggest eye-opener?
@@ExplainedWithPaint in my opinion gambler's fallacy but all of them are good and explained nicely, i actually thought you had over 100k-200k subs. you deserve more keep it up
Haha, that would be awesome. Keep watching, and maybe you can help me get there 😎
And thanks again for the last comment! You have no idea how much motivation such comments give people. Cheers
Severe sunk cost fallacy sufferer here plz donate kindly
Have you considered winning the money back?
Gambling itself is the fallacy.
Hah, can't really argue with that!
Er wiederholt sich so oft 😂
Entschuldigung
To be honest, it's easy to control the outcome of the dice, with a good percentage. But well, definitely not at the casino with people watching you, so I'll accept it 😄
Haha, true, even if you find a way, they'll find you!
@@ExplainedWithPaint Exactly, and I guess being thrown out of a casino can't be much fun 😄
Aka The BossmanJack Mindset.
I know each individual outcome is separate, like 7 reds in a row but I don’t get how statistically it’s not good to go black in such an unlikely event
In probability, each event is independent, meaning the odds don't change based on previous outcomes. For example, in roulette, the chance of landing on red or black is always the same for each spin, regardless of past results.
Even if you see 7 reds in a row, it might seem rare, but it doesn't affect the odds of the next spin. Each spin is independent, with no connection to the previous ones. The sequence of reds is just part of the randomness.
For instance, the probability of getting red 3 times in a row is (0.5)^3 = 12.5%, and 4 times in a row is (0.5)^4 = 6.25%. However, once you have already seen 3 reds, those outcomes are certain and part of history. The probability of getting red on the next spin remains 50%, just like any other individual spin.
@@ExplainedWithPaint but you basically just explained it. Each outcome continues with the power of 4, 5, 6 etc. so if you calculate to the power of 7, such an event is so unlikely that you should almost always bet on the opposite of whatever colour has achieved such a milestone. Yes although each event is individual and still the same statistic, the probability is much lower, therefore would it not be LOGICAL in those rare circumstances?
No, it does not continue with the power of x. Probability of the future does not continue with any function of the past
It would not be logical, you are simply describing the gambling fallacy itself
Funny how this got recommended to me right after i watched a video on how to play poker
You should send me a kick back of the future losses I just made you avoid ;)
if i told you that the algorithms that everyone is afraid of are real and are allowed in any casino in the US (online and off) would you change some of the thoughts you had on people who think they are being cheated
Sorry, not really sure what you mean 🤔
@@ExplainedWithPaint Well, the thing is, that every single thing a gambler says, cant always be a fallacy. As in a broken clock is at least right twice a day... Gamblers are impulsive and (rarely) care about thinking about what they are getting themselves into before they do it. Did you know that most modern roulette wheels have a mechanism called random rotor speed, or have mechanisms that allow them to randomize various factors related to the wheel which essentially changes the original path of the ball had it only been a dealer and the wheel speed at first. The random rotor speed "imperceptibly" changes the wheel speed in a random manner in order to stop people from coming into the casinos with a camera that can clock a wheel, and thats also online roulette as well. I can go on for years. Its all cheating to me.
@@pvtglarson1 oh wow, no I did not know that. Interesting!
How does this account only have 700 followers
Thanks, buddy
@@ExplainedWithPaint just realizing I said followers instead of subscribers
@@ImaCanadianxD followers sound better, somehow, so didn't even think about it ;)
Great video
Glad you enjoyed it
I feel like some of these were mentioned multiple times
Rolling the dice any way affects the result, obviously. Wtf are you talking about?
I do all of these to make sure I win.
I can tell you're a successful investor 🧠
@@ExplainedWithPaint 😂
But I do like to gamble though, this video will help if I get caught out going _over my head._
@@timhinchcliffe5372 glad to hear! ;)
lets all hit the slots and blackjack. lmao
That's the spirit!
Super cool!
Thanks for the feedback, this means the world to me! ❤️
@@ExplainedWithPaint I have a gambler mindset.
But I'm not addicted.
Rule number 1: bet only what you can lose.
Nowadays I play Poker, Lottery and do Buy & Hold in the stock market.
This info is good for me to know my mindset even better, avoid traps.
Greetings from Brasil!
Thanks.
@@KinoGP2 Obrigado for the comment! Stock market buy and hold is not the worst gambling mindset you can have at least, haha. I'm a big fan ;)
This is so wrong. "Due to come" is a thing. Flip a coin. Yes, each flip is independent of the others, but the odds of going 5 heads in a row vs. 10 heads in a row is much different.
At a certain point it is mathematically the best decision to switch colors on a roulette wheel.
Not hard to spot a gambler when you see one 😅
Still won
Maybe you just didn't play long enough 😜
Also I never remember my wins as much as the sick beats I’ve sustained in poker.
Can't remember the academic term if this, but it's been proven that we typically experience a loss of e.g, 100 bucks twice as bad as a win of the same amount. We're pretty silly, humans 😂
Great video.
Glad you enjoyed it
I think the universe is telling me to quit poker lol
OR, the universe is just getting to tell you to try a bit harder, just one more game to win it all back
bro deserve more regconigtion
Thanks ❤️
Nice thank you
Thank you too!
A lot of these are the same
Oki
99% OF GAMBLERS QUIT BEFORE HITTING IT BIG
Because you ran out of money before hitting big
@@singhji1502 that's why you gotta take out a mortgage and max out your credit card
Me unknowingly studying for CFA level 1
Hahah
Good video 👍🏻
Thanks for the feedback/comment, Joao 🙏😊
bossmanjack encyclopedia
To be fair in poker having a winning streak has a psychological effect on the other players at the table, which can be exploited.
very true, good point!
Even though all the events are independent of each other in most casino games, wouldn’t it still be a higher theoretical probably to bet on tails on a coin flip when heads had previous been flipped 6 times before because of how the odds have to even themselves out in the long run?
No. You are describing the gambler's fallacy. Probability doesn't care about the past.
The coin doesn't care m8
@@ExplainedWithPaint That's incorrect. If the probability of heads or tails is 50/50, then if you have 1,000 flips, you should have around 500 heads and 500 tails. So if the first 500 flips have all been heads (which is incredibly unlikely), then the next flip theoretically is more likely to be tails (and most of the next 500 should be tails).
Each flip is not directly affected by any previous flip. But if you accept that it's overall 50/50, then the pattern will eventually adjust to reflect that 50/50. Gamblers betting on games that are or close to 50/50, such as baccarat and roulette, often use this strategy (called the Martingale system).
@@poshbo you can call it a system or a strategy, you are still describing a bias assuming that future probability has any relation with the past. For any set of "future 1000 flips", you are correct, the expectation is 50/50. This won't change regardless of the past. You could say the same for a future set of 500 flips, you can expect 250 of each.
The next flips are not theoretically more likely to be tails, regardless of the past.
You are simply falling for the same bias as the person behind the same comment.
Try posting this thread in chatGPT and see what you get out :)
@@ExplainedWithPaint not sure how ChatGPT will help. But like I said, the previous flip doesn't directly affect the next flip. But if you accept the 50/50 overall trend, then you'd expect the trend to start to adjust.
I'll describe it this way. Starting from now, I will flip the coin 1,000 times. Surely we agree that it should be roughly 500 tails, 500 heads right? But if the first 500 flips are all heads, surely we agree that the following 500 flips are more likely to mostly be tails right? It's not a guarantee that the 501st flip is tails, but it's just that flips 501 to 1000 overall are more likely to be more tails than heads. Surely you agree with this right?
every reason you should definetly keep gambling because you will make money?
you got the hidden message, well done
So the illusion of control isn’t actually a illusion in some games. In craps the way you roll the dice can actually affect the number you roll based on grip,force thrown, and how you hold the dice. There is actually several famous craps gambler I recommend to explore this subject further
While grip and force can influence the roll, the game's inherent randomness typically dominates. Some famous gamblers claim to control dice outcomes, but these claims should be viewed skeptically. The law of large numbers means that some will have lucky streaks, allowing them to claim skill.
i love AI
Cool
Gamblers, don't listen to this trash! Your next hand is gonna be your big break!
I know a winner when I see one!
So as far as Craps go there is indeed a world where someone could master throwing the dice the exact same way everytime albeit it is extremely uncommon and hard.
partially true, but the element of randomness is still so big that it doesn't really matter.
The first two things stated were already wrong. Other players are put off by certain attitudes and that will drive your success .Then You stated players believe something< Yes they do ,and when You influence how they feel , it helps You to win.< just by pressure alone.I win by faking, bluffing, and by pure BS attitude.
Ok
99% of gamblers quit before making it big
99% of gamblers are losers because they gave up to soon, is what I think you mean to say? 😜
I agree my friend .
Currently at 100k euro debt but mamma didn’t raise a quitter 🥹
w content
Cheers
I think your wrong about craps and poker as they is the odds are more in your favor statistically, if that’s the case then practicing strategy at these would be your best bet to win.
Thanks for sharing
Poker yes you can win in the long run if you're highly skilled and knowledgeable of the game and there is little to no rake at the games you play, even 3:2 Blackjack is beatable if you count cards. Craps I don't believe is beatable though
@@strathattack4325 it’s about what you believe, look it up and what tables or games have the best odds! I’ve played everything and gambled for 20 years. Craps have variables that you can use math to better your chances based on if your grip is consistent, now you factor in how the tables are different so make sure you know your table! After that there’s different sets that if you throw 100 times the same set you’ll start to see what hits, and if there is a high frequency of numbers wouldn’t betting on those numbers increase your chances? It’s not option based for me I’ve played with craps teams and seen people far better then me, come in and win 1-2k in 30 min and dip. Hitting the same exact numbers 6-10 times then you press the first few times and make money and take your money down and leave.
It's funny, sometimes you get a table in poker where you can use these fallacies to your advantage, because your opponents believe in them.
haha 100%