I can accept the fact that on a Roulette wheel (as long as there are no defects or imbalances in the wheel or ball) that the odds are the same each spin and previous spin outcomes have no influence over the current spin. However, if I see black come up 32 times in a row I am betting on red for the next spin.
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.
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.
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 odds 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 how likely long runs are at a fair table.
Thanks for elaborating. :)
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”.
Interesting! Thanks for the heads up.