Quote from: valta4065 on January 13, 2017, 07:18:48 PM

Quote from: adaseb on January 13, 2017, 08:49:58 AM

Quote from: Bitcoins101 on January 13, 2017, 03:40:29 AM

That's 100% a fallacy.

Well when you are dealing with probability you can assume that if the house wins 50% and you win 50% when rolls -> infinity. Then chances are the next 100 bets, there will be more winners than losers to even it out. Yes I understand that each roll is completely independent of the prior and the next 100 bets can also have 90% losers and 10% winners.

That's how people go bankrupt when doing martingale. However if you assume it will eventually even out then you chances of betting 100 rolls and winning 51 times or more is higher than if you made 100 bets prior and won 90% of them and lost only 10%.

Nope, that's a completely false reasoning ^^

Let's say you bet on 50% and you lose 100 bets straight. Then in the next roll, you'll have exactly 50% chance of winning. And that for every rolls ever. Doesn't matter what you rolled.
I understand what you mean, you mean you should win more because it has to even out eventually, but in reality that's not the case. It's just an impression your brain gots that's all Wink

But in this case you're not talking about the chance of winning the bet, you're talking about the chance of losing X amount of 50% bets in a row, which has its own odds.