Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

Talk:Gambler's fallacy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Monty Hall problem[edit]

Is there a connection with the Monty Hall problemWikipedia? 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. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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[edit]

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 oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

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[edit]

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 (tx). "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 (tx). LeucippusTalk 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 :] LeucippusTalk 21:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)