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


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

7 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

The gambler’s fallacy isn’t that a long streak is unlikely. It’s that the probability of the next spin being black changes based on previous spins, that the probability of red on the next spin is 60% or 70% instead of just 50%.

In reality, the outcome of any one spin is independent of all prior spins. If I give you a wheel that has just gotten 25 blacks and one that has just gotten a mix of 25 reds and blacks, each still has the same chance of getting black on the next spin.

It’s just unlikely for the 25 black streak to have already happened on the all-black wheel.

The chance of *any* unique pattern of 25 prior spins — say, red-black-red-black-red-black — is equally fantastically improbable. We just think of all black as being interesting because it happens to stand out to us.

You are viewing 1 out of 7 answers, click here to view all answers.