{"id":1745,"date":"2019-08-18T13:46:01","date_gmt":"2019-08-18T13:46:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.casino.com\/blog\/\/blog\/?p=1745"},"modified":"2024-04-14T18:46:34","modified_gmt":"2024-04-14T18:46:34","slug":"the-gamblers-fallacy-logic-vs-feelings-at-the-casino","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.casino.com\/blog\/2019\/08\/18\/the-gamblers-fallacy-logic-vs-feelings-at-the-casino\/","title":{"rendered":"The Gambler\u2019s Fallacy: Logic vs. Feelings at the Casino"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
Imagine: you\u2019re at the roulette<\/a> table. You\u2019ve been watching the ball spin and bounce its way around the wheel. For the past 15 spins, the ball has landed on black. Every. Single. Time. As the croupier throws the ball again, and announces \u2018no more bets\u2019, it wouldn\u2019t be unreasonable to assume that \u2013 this time \u2013 the ball would not land on black. Surely\u2026 it\u2019s time for red to win. Isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n\n The short answer is \u2018no\u2019. This is the \u2018gambler\u2019s fallacy\u2019: a failure to understand statistical independence. In fact, the chances of hitting either red or black are 50\/50 every time (if \u2013 for the sake of simplicity \u2013 we exclude the zero). Each time the wheel spins, it is a singular betting occurrence; the odds are the same every time and are completely unaffected by the previous spins of the wheel.<\/p>\n\n Another great example are lottery numbers. Few people pick consecutive numbers, incorrectly assuming they are less likely to hit than those more randomly spaced. The plain truth is: a ticket with the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is just a likely to win as any other.<\/p>\n\n Dek Terrell wrote an article in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (1994)<\/a>, which defined the gambler’s fallacy as “the belief that the probability of an event is decreased when the event has occurred recently”, which is probably as good a definition as any.<\/p>\n\n With seconds to go, and just one shot to save the universe, Luke Skywalker flicked off his targeting computer and listened to the ghostly voice of Ben Kenobi. \u2018Trust the Force\u2019, he said. Luke did and scored a blinder.<\/p>\n\n Meanwhile in a galaxy far, far, away, a certain S\u2019chn T\u2019gai Spock is a character driven by nothing other than pure logic. On paper, you would think that Spock would consider gambling illogical. However, in Star Trek, episode 21 (Patterns of Force), season 2, in 1968, he said: \u201cCaptain, I’m beginning to understand why you Earthmen enjoy gambling. No matter how carefully one computes the odds of success, there is still a certain\u2026 exhilaration in the risk.\u201d<\/p>\n\n And it is that \u2018exhilaration\u2019 that blurs the edges of logic and strengthens the influence of feelings.<\/p>\n\n Emotion is rarely your friend when it comes to casino<\/a> gaming, however, and it can lead to some hasty decisions which players may come to regret.<\/p>\n\n It was the night of Monday, August 18, 1913. Stainless steel had been invented by Harry Brearley five days earlier and Adolphe Pegoud would be the first man the parachute from an aircraft within 48 hours. In Monaco, at the lavish Casino de Monte-Carlo, it was business as usual. Europe\u2019s wealthy came to gamble and play. Little did they realise, they were about to witness an occurrence that was a 136,823,184 to one shot.<\/p>\n\n A crowd started to gather around the roulette table, as people realised the ball kept landing on black. In fact, it would land on black for 26 consecutive spins. Only finally hitting red on the 27th spin. It was a great night for the casino. As the ball continued to hit black, more and more people wagered on red. From the 15th black spin, the pots kept increasing in size. After the red had hit, there was disproportionate betting on red. People believed that red was due for a run as well.<\/p>\n\n All this is a prime example of feelings trumping logic and the most famous example of the gamblers’ fallacy in action.<\/p>\n\nStar Wars or Star Trek?<\/h2>\n\n
The Monte Carlo Fallacy<\/h2>\n\n
We\u2019ve Got Chemistry<\/h2>\n\n