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 gamblers fallacy would still hold true, they thought the odds of a red would be likely.
On paper the odds of the next spin are unchanged, despite what the gamblers think.
The unlikely hood is dispensed with in history and history doesn’t matter to the odds of the next spin, at least in theory.

But in practice however, think of it another way:
You picked up a pencil and let it go.
1st time, it falls to the ground.
2nd time, it falls to the ground.
3rd time…
28th time, it falls to the ground.

Predict what would happen for the 29th time you picked up a pencil and let it go.

Terrible pattern recognition on that time would be “uhhh, it will rocket up to the ceiling, because it would break the streak”, even ” there are even odds it will rocket to the ceiling or fall to the floor” is lousy critical thinking.

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