A request for assistance: all views welcome by email if this is too offtopic Beliefs vs delusions Roger and Jimske mentioned addiction, and each was looking at one half of the contingency table.  Roger implied that counting doesn't guarantee non-addiction, but seems to feel willingness to buy into hunch-_base_d systems increases the probability of addiction.  It also  seems likely that some counters or wannabees may meet some of the criteria of problem gambling . I am affiliated with a self-help organization trying to develop intervention strategies for people with gambling problems .  I am interested in obtaining any and  all of your views about how one's understanding of Probability and the mechanics of games contributes to   problem gambling . I am particularly interested in the notion that remediating people's understanding may assist in decreasing the problems with their gambling. However, people's beliefs about games appear to border on the delusional, at times, and can be difficult to remediate  (present company excluded . Comments? Please also offer suggestions about how to make the math/probability stuff more accessible/digestible by the average person with a gambling problem . I am looking for ideas for demonstrating concepts in a graphic or concrete manner for people who cannot follow the math, and therefore cannot believe in it. (aside from flipping coins to compile a distribution). I believe a significant portion of variance is accounted for by illusions of control and certain cognitive biases that negatively influence judgement and decision-making (factors in the oft-cited need for discipline and money-management ). I find it interesting that a several posters have cited the need for faith that their counting strategies will see them through the variance troughs. Is it at all paradoxical that people must deny what their senses are telling them, when they are losing as counters, and when they are winning as clumpers? Do  BJ p_layer_s (and gamblers in general) have to dissociate themselves from their normal feedback mechanisms in order to continue playing? Does this contribute to the development of compulsions/obsessions and deluding the self about what's really going on (i.e. the extent to which gambling is interfering with or replacing normal life?) Thanks to the moderators if they allow this post. I don't see much worthy discussion going on anywhere else. Thanks for any and all input. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Does this contribute to the development of compulsions/obsessions and deluding the self about what's really going on (i.e. the extent to which gambling is interfering with or replacing normal life?) IME counters exhibit about a normal mix of non-gambling-related psychological hangups.  The dissonance created by correctly interpreting the math vis-a-vis built-in perception seems to be offset by the level-headedness required to make that interpretation in the first place. I do know counters who are clearly addicted, some of whom even win.  But I know even more people who have had the math explained to them and the wins demonstrated who still go and play the slots.  Go figure.

Is it at all paradoxical that people must deny what their senses are telling them, when they are losing as counters, and when they are winning as clumpers? Do  BJ p_layer_s (and gamblers in general) have to dissociate themselves from their normal feedback mechanisms in order to continue playing? the brain's natural inclination is to try to find patterns in things. ever stare at the clouds looking for interesting formations? BJ p_layer_s (counters) have to recognize the folly of believing that all observed patterns are significant here's a paradox: intelligent people are better at finding patterns than others. so maybe intelligence is a bad trait for a counter i suspect that if most gamblers (not counters) shut down these feedback mechanisms gambling would quickly lose its appeal. there would be no way to take credit for wins and nobody to blame for losses. wilfo

As with Jimske and Kfred you can explain all of mathematics from 2+2=4 to computer sims and EV and they will say, But _I_ saw this... We are saying A LOT more than I saw this.  What I am saying is that your math is very likely wrong when compared to real world shoe games.  That you haven't yet found out how to simulate these conditions.  That if the games are NOT as random as your RNG's seem to indicate - your calculalations are nullified. Jimske

i suspect that if most gamblers (not counters) shut down these feedback mechanisms gambling would quickly lose its appeal. there would be no way to take credit for wins and nobody to blame for losses. There is some pretty good evidence that problem gamblers who reach bottom are fairly depressed and blame themselves for game outcomes over which they actually had *no* control. This can be very self-punitive.  The more depressed, the more critical judgement suffers, and the worse their decision-making becomes, and the deeper the hole, and the mpore depressed...and so on. Elegant studies from England show that losing horsep_layer_s' accuracy of picks actually decreases as they start chasing losses. Thanks again, ytilauqe

any and  all of your views about how one's understanding of Probability and the mechanics of games contributes to   problem gambling . I applaud your efforts, but as a former heavy drinker and former 4-pack-a-day smoker, I think you may be approaching the problem from the wrong direction. I can assure you that in my case (and in many others I have known), neither knowledge nor intelligence had anything to do with causing or curing addiction.