Why does something like the gambler’s fallacy hold true in an instance like the monte carlo roulette incident?

Question

In case you’re wondering what the monte carlo incident is, it was a game of roulette that landed on black 26 times in a row… the odds of that happening is 1 in 66.6 million

The gamblers fallacy is a fallacy that people who gamble tend to think if something has a long streak it’s going to change.

If the odds of it being 26 blacks in a row is 1 in 66.6 million why would that be a fallacy? Obviously it could always be a 27th black but thats incredibly unlikely and statistically speaking red would be far more likely…

In: Other

Answer 1

> Obviously it could always be a 27th black but thats incredibly unlikely and statistically speaking red would be far more likely…

That’s not true though, a red is just as likely as a black, no matter what. Yes the chances of 26 blacks in a row is very small, but it’s no smaller than the chance of any other pattern. Previous outcomes have no effect on future ones, so the chance of red or black is *always* 50/50.