Comment on [deleted]
amio@kbin.social 9 months ago
The important part is "internalizing" that one spin doesn't influence the next. A red won't be more likely after N blacks unless something specifically made it that way. Sequences like "long run of reds/blacks" don't have any actual significance, but "seems like they should" because we're heavily geared towards pattern matching.
haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 9 months ago
Am I weird because I would do the exact opposite. the fact that it landed like this time and time again tells me either the croupier has a biased throwing technique or the wheel is broken atm.
dudinax@programming.dev 9 months ago
No you’re not wrong. There’s a reverse fallacy called the ludic fallacy: an unwarranted belief that the rules of the game describe how the game actually works.
“Given a fair table, if red comes up 99 times in a row, what are the relative odd of getting red vs. black?”
Mathematician, falling for the ludic fallacy: 1:1
Realist: You’re wrong. The table isn’t fair. Red is more likely.
However, people tend to underestimate the how likely long runs are at a fair table.
haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 9 months ago
Thanks for elaborating. :)
amio@kbin.social 9 months ago
That could be reasonable in certain scenarios, but that's technically not the gambler's fallacy anymore; at that point you're talking about the "something specifically made it that way" I mentioned. I was talking about uniform/fair distribution of outcomes (part of the definition of the gambler's fallacy), otherwise it's just "hey, this distribution is lopsided as hell".
haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 9 months ago
Interesting! Thanks for the heads up.