Re: Primedice | Most Popular & Trusted | Huge Community | Free BTC
Yes I understand however consider this scenario. Lets assume house edge is 0% for simplicity.
Say you take 100 bets, 50 are winners and 50 are losers.
Then lets say you take another 100 bets, 10 are winners, and 90 are losers.
So the house is winning and eventually sometime in the future, the stats must shift so Casino wins 50% and you win 50% of the time.
So chances are the next 100 bets, there will be more winners than losers.
I am sure there are many who make good money with similar methods as I described.
Say you take 100 bets, 50 are winners and 50 are losers.
Then lets say you take another 100 bets, 10 are winners, and 90 are losers.
So the house is winning and eventually sometime in the future, the stats must shift so Casino wins 50% and you win 50% of the time.
So chances are the next 100 bets, there will be more winners than losers.
I am sure there are many who make good money with similar methods as I described.
One would expect the wins/losses to even out over a significant amount of time, but this easily leads to Gambler's Fallacy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy ). There is really isn't a higher chance of more winners in the next 100 bets. It's all up to chance on what will happen.
Yes, but isn't that the reason why its gambling? You bet on what you feel, not what you know.
All we can do is to try to win over our doubts that a roll will miss or hit, we may have an idea, but not certain, thats why we gamble.
