Scenario: there is a machine at a casino that hits jackpot 1/100 times it is used. The probability that one does NOT hit jackpot on their first spin is .99^1, the second .99^2, and on their nth .99^n (hoping my math is right). As the number of non-winning spins increases, many people would say the machine is “due” because the probability of the losing streak continuing gets lower and lower, but AFAIK that is not valid. Why is that?
In: 0
To maybe give you a more intuitive example instead of just rehashing the same “gambler’s fallacy” comment, think about every other instance of probability that we interact with.
Every time you drive to work, you have some probability of getting in a car accident. Do you get more and more frightened every time you get in your car because you’re “due” for a car accident? It’s the same principle for gambling.
Latest Answers