good design cool

[GogoCro]

Landis, can you prove that luck exsist??
Maybe these systmes or startegy open lucky dimension.
How many people belives in luck but can they prove it?

[bombus]

Landis, can you prove that luck exsist??
Maybe these systmes or startegy open lucky dimension.
How many people belives in luck but can they prove it?

Hey, GogoCro.

Can we use this as a rule in your possible HG thread?

Rule 5) System must be lucky!

Haha...

[gizmotron]

What about the general notion that you create your own luck?

[bombus]

What about the general notion that you create your own luck?

I strongly believe luck is a universal commodity, and the entire human race is constantly making deposits and withdrawals.

It's the bloody deposits that stuff it up for most people. You deposit some bad luck, and in a moment of weakness, I come along and withdraw it!

[GogoCro]

We can sell luck on ebay, varius packing size.

-Bambus , rule 5) Player must be lucky (not system)

[Landis]

I think the biggest problem at hand is the failure of many people to grasp basic probability.

Sometime soon I will post some general guidelines for evaluating systems. 

The biggest problem so far on this forum is most of the systems are unfortunately built with bad blue prints.  Yes,
I'm talking about the gambler's fallacy.

Is it possible to build systems and methods that aren't built upon the gambler's fallacy?

The answer is YES.  (And NO, I'm not trying to sell something.)

[Davey-Jones]

[bombus]

We can sell luck on ebay, varius packing size.

-Bambus , rule 5) Player must be lucky (not system)

@ Gocrowitonamountain

Ok, but will there be a 'buy it now' option?

[Tangram]

Landis,

Is it possible to build systems and methods that aren't built upon the gambler's fallacy?

Suppose I study 100,000 actuals and find that long runs don't occur nearly as often as theory predicts. A run of 13 blacks is more improbable than it should be, so having seen 12 blacks in a row, I'm going to bet red. Am I committing the gambler's fallacy?

[Number Six]

Yes 

[TwoCatSam]

Tangram

Suppose I study 100,000 actuals and find that long runs don't occur nearly as often as theory predicts.

..you wrote and the blue is mine, of course.

I understand the word "suppose" puts your whole question in the realm of supposition and not reality, I just don't understand why.  In reality, will there ever be a time when the wheel does not confirm to probability, assuming a fair and balanced wheel? 

But to answer the question, no you would not be buying into the GF as we know it.  You would be exploiting something, although I don't know what.

Sam

[Number Six]

You would be betting with the erroneous belief that you had a better than 18 in 37 chance of winning. In a way, absolutely every method, including VB is fallacious.

[winkel]

While we try to catch something possible there is always one who claims it is impossible.

[Landis]

I understand the word "suppose" puts your whole question in the realm of supposition and not reality, I just don't understand why.  In reality, will there ever be a time when the wheel does not confirm to probability, assuming
a fair and balanced wheel?

While we try to catch something possible there is always one who claims it is impossible

That's because you're  misinterpreting probability.  Read more on it and you will understand why.

[Tangram]

I'd like to hear Landis' response to my question, I have my own opinion, but I'd like to hear his.  

No tricks Landis, I'm not trying to catch you out. I'm not sure whether my opinion is correct. I like to know whether you think it's a fallacy or not, and why.

[Tangram]

-