Talk:Gambler's fallacy

Monty Hall problem

Is there a connection with the Monty Hall problem? It seems like a sort of inverse gamler's fallacy: a situation where your odds do actually improve but your gut feeling is that it's still an even game. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That's really a stretch. The Monty Hall problem purposefully exploits the fact that people don't realize they've been given information. Whereas the gambler's fallacy is far more about a conflation of the long term probabilities with the short term, a class of misunderstanding. Ikanreed (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Attribution

Some content from http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Reverse_gambler%27s_fallacy, http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Inverse_Gambler%27s_Fallacy, http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_Fallacy 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

Is it a fallacy if, after '(a significant number) of a kind in a row' to ask for (at least one of) the coins, dice etc, and 'the person doing the activity' to be changed? Anna Livia (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@ThisIsMyRealName

R.e. your recent edits: You seem to be stating that "Whenever a critical "volume" of gamblers and a critical "take" is reached, the casino manager is justified in expecting to win at some point in time (t_x). "that the casino will always eventually win". He is justified because of his repeated association between, on the one hand, a critical volume of gamblers AND a critical take, and on the other hand winning; he also conversely notes, that when the volume and take are below the critical threshold, the casino doesn't tend towards (t_x). Leucippus^Talk 21:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Leucippus Please feel free to correct or update what I wrote. I mainly added it as a joke, but you seem to have a better way of fleshing it out. :-) —ThisIsMyRealName (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

ohh.. I didn't bother reading the context of the section. I was just responding to your comment out of intellectual curiosity. Yeah, my edition makes the joke well...a bit of a yawner :] Leucippus^Talk 21:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)