Before referring to a Gambler's Fallacy argument, remember, it doesn't quite apply in Blackjack, since the odds change according to what cards have been played. That's one of the juicy enticements of playing Blackjack. (I know, the original post was avoiding card counting, however, stay with me a bit here.)
Gamblers Fallacy Does Not Apply To BJ
- Thread starter BigFish
- Start date
Lonesome Gambler
Well-Known Member
As you know, the odds of winning your hand vary depending on the composition of the deck. When you count, you keep track of the deck composition and you bet higher when the odds are in your favor. When you employ a betting strategy that uses the outcome of previous hands as a method to determine what to bet on subsequent hands—without regard to the deck composition—then you're essentially varying your bets randomly. If you lose 20 hands in a row, you're no more likely to win the next one than if you had lost only 2 hands in a row, simply because it seems like you're "due" for a win. The gambler's fallacy is perfectly applicable to blackjack or any other time when you feel like you're "due" for a win; it just doesn't work that way. That's the why we count.BigFish said:
Lonesome Gambler
Well-Known Member
Just to clarify this: the odds do change from hand to hand, but the Gambler's Fallacy relates to times when you feel the odds have changed in or against your favor based on the outcomes of previous trials and not on statistical data, such as your chances to win when there are an abundance of tens and Aces in the pack. Counting is a way of identifying these advantages in a true mathematical way; non-counting betting strategies do not do this. So even though blackjack is a game of dependent trials, the idea that you can expect a win after a series of losses or vice versa is the Gambler's Fallacy.Sonny said:
HockeXpert
Well-Known Member
The gambler's fallacy applies to anything that occurs repeatedly with an expected outcome. I think the original post that prompted this was regarding devising a betting system based on increasing your bet size after a significant # of losses. The gambler's fallacy definitely applies in this application since the bettor is simply thinking that a win is "due" since they had not won in such a long time and completely disregaring whether an advantage exists based on the composition of the deck.BigFish said:
When speaking of the gambler's fallacy and cc'ing, how many times do we put out max bet after max bet only to lose over and over again? Should we then increase our bet because we are "due" a win? No, we stick to our "plan" and bet according to the count paying no attenetion to any previous won-loss records.
The gambler's fallacy does not apply when cc'ing but for your average gambler, the gambler's fallacy applies just as much in 21 as in any other game of chance. As Sonny pointed out, BJ is unique because the outcome of each hand is dependent on the composition of the preceeding hands but unless that information is applied properly you would never know when the advantge favors the palyer and when to increase your bet. Playing any other way (with certain AP exceptions:grin
, you would simply be gambling and guessing when you are more likely to win.HockeXpert
