Gamblers' superstitions
are mainly malarkey. They're born when coincidences are enhanced
by selective memory or repetitive recitation. They grow when players
have little or no grasp of the math, or are flat-out wrong about
what it says or how it applies. And they reach fruition when solid
citizens succumb to desire for fantasy to be fact and convince themselves
they can explain random events using the reason and logic of ordered
systems.
Mainly
malarkey. But not entirely. Superstition, in casinos and the real
world, is a presumed link between proximate incidents when cause-and-effect
is unproved. So, circumstances may exist in which posited interactions
exist but are not yet discovered or understood, or when correlations
are probabilistic but data are insufficient to conclude that they're
statistically significant. History is replete with laws of science
that started this way.
Gambling smart
alecs mock machine mavens who think slots run in predetermined cycles
and seek series of hits suggesting the onset of a hot phase. Or,
they deride dice devotees who call Place bets "off" if
the hexahedrons go off the table, believing this somehow signals
increased odds of a seven on the next toss. They likewise belittle
blackjack buffs who breach Basic Strategy, convinced that a Bezonian
who flouts the "book" changes the sequence of the cards
and ruins the table for everyone else. And, the ridicule is warranted
in these cases because causality is known to be absent.
Yet, many of
the same experts turn out to harbor superstitions of their own.
They presume causal relationships based on ad hoc experience rather
than repeatable experimental proof, deduction from "first principles,"
or analytical substantiation at a high degree of confidence. Some
try to rationalize the underlying phenomena as a way of validating
their theories. But most such explanations admit of elements that
are not well understood. Not yet, anyway. Some may ultimately be
shown valid, others will not.
One example
would involve setting the dice and executing a controlled throw
at craps. Some gaming gurus claim this is nonsense. Most casino
bigwigs dismiss it as well, and could take countermeasures if they
considered it a threat. Yet more than a few esteemed authorities
are convinced that orienting the dice in certain ways before rolling
them, throwing so they tumble end over end as if rotating on an
axle rather than twisting, and hitting the "right" spots
on the table or wall to minimize spurious motions can reduce the
likelihood of the faces set on the ends finishing on top. You can
conceptualize or work out how the probabilities would change, for
instance, if both dice had the one and six on the ends and only
two through five could finish on top, each with a probability of
one out of four.
Another
illustration involves blackjack. Basic Strategy depends on cards
being drawn at random. But, how well does a shuffle randomize the
cards? Shoes always meet criteria for probabilistic randomness,
in that six decks start with 312 cards of which 24 are aces and
so forth. But what of statistical randomness in the succession of
the cards? What statistical properties might make a game far better
or worse than Basic Strategy suggests? More importantly, does something
anticipate or cause either situation? The results of the previous
shoe? The coarseness or fineness of the interleaving when the dealer
shuffles? Some
|