<Singing softly to myself>
Who is the tall, dark stranger there?
Maverick is the name.
Ridin' the trail to who knows where,
Luck is his companion,
Gamblin' is his game…
Oh, sorry there, folks, just drifting off their with a bit of tv nostalgia. Anyway, today’s installment has little to do with argumentation per se, but has to do with what has become known as The Gambler’s Fallacy, a fallacy that Bret Maverick undoubtedly knew a lot about and how to exploit. Let’s all ante up and get started, eh?
The Gamblers Fallacy, to boil it down, is the belief that prior events determine the probability of future outcomes. Now, that just sounds like plain old cause-and-effect, right? But the Gamblers Fallacy means a bit more than that. Not everything is connected in a cause-and-effect manner where a previous event CAN effect the next event. Let me explain further.
Flip a coin and look at the result.
Got heads? Ok. Flip it again, ok?
Heads again? Ok,again.
Heads a third time in a row? Wow what do you think the next flip will be?
In our heads, our beliefs would tend to run one of two ways: That there’s no way 4 heads in a row is going to happen, so the next flip MUST be a tails. Or, someone else might take the stand that geez, 3 in a row, it’s a streak, the next one’s probably gotta be heads, too.
The reality is, with a fair coin, the odds of that fourth flip being heads again is 50-50, the same as it was for the first, second and third flips. Those previous coin flips have no effect on the fourth flip and, indeed, can’t have an effect on the fourth flip. The coin has no idea what the previous flip was.
Casinos make their money off of this fallacy. Look at the slot machine player keeping an eye out for a machine that hasn’t paid out big for awhile in the belief that it is “due” for a jackpot, or the roulette players positive that the wheel is “due” to land on red this time for sure. Or the lottery player looking at past numbers to decide which are “due” to come up. It’s anyone betting in the belief that they have a “streak” going.
Monte Carlo
As a matter of fact, this fallacy has another name — The Monte Carlo Fallacy — because on the evening of August 18th, 1913, a roulette wheel in the Monte Carlo Casino in Monaco landed on black an astounding 26 times in a row — the odds of which are on the order of about 1 in 6.6 million assuming a fair wheel.
Gamblers at the table lost millions of francs when they, seeing black come up time after time after time, bet ever higher amounts against black, reasoning that after many consecutive black spins, red MUST come up on the next spin.
And, well, they were right. Eventually. But it had nothing to do with whether or not the previous 26 spins had been black, and everything to do with the probability of red coming up on the 27th spin totally independent of those other spins.
The Gamblers Fallacy finds its way into more aspects of life than just the roulette tables or slot machines, however.
Other Examples
A big obvious example is the stock market. The trader that is SURE that stock that’s been dropping is due for a turnaround, for example, or who cashes out of a stock that has been climbing, sure it’s due for a downturn. Now, there may be external cause-and-effect reasons why that may be a case having to do with the stock or other factors, but it’s not simply “because it’s due.”
Interestingly a study by Chen, et al, found that a study of refugee court judges, umpires and loan officers (interesting combo, eh?) found that those studied would (perhaps unconsciously) after a number of consecutively similar decisions, change their decisions despite similar conditions continuing to be in front of them. Why would this happen? The thought is that they either consciously or unconsciously realize the existence of a pattern or “streak” and then make a decision contrary to it to avoid a look of unfairness, “being to easy,” or in trying to achieve a balance in decisions. Why does this fall under the mantle of the Gamblers Fallacy? Because consciously or unconsciously, those individuals have been influenced by previous results that should have NO influence on the outcome of their next decision. For an umpire, a ball is a ball and if the last four players walked because of them, that has no bearing on the pitch headed to the plate RIGHT NOW. For a judge or loan officer, the case being decided has its own merits (or lack thereof) and the previous case, or fifteen cases, should have no influence on the outcome of THIS case.
Chen et al, found that 1 in 9 loan officers studied were influenced in this way. Stop a moment and think about that. Your loan application, might be influenced unfairly because the loan officer approved the last dozen applications, and feels (consciously or unconsciously) that it’s “time” to turn one down...and the next one that lands his desk is yours. Of course, if they’ve just turned down a dozen in a row, that could work to your advantage, too. But the point is that those previous applications should have no influence on the decision made on YOUR application.
What Can We Do?
So, how do we avoid the Gamblers Fallacy? Here are some tips:
Think about the reality and logic of whether previous events really affect what is about to happen, or whether they are, in fact, independent of each other. In a normal cause-and-effect situation, sure, things happen in a logical progression from A causes B causes C. BUT, remember that a pair of dice, for example, have NO WAY of remember what their previous roll, or ten rolls, were, no way for a coin to know what the previous dozen flips were, etc. In other words, try to understand when looking to cause-and -effect for predicting future events is appropriate, and when it isn’t.
Also — and this is rather a generic bit of advice on critical thinking generally — slow down. Think about what you’re thinking, and why you’re thinking it. A lot of logical fallacies get committed because of a lack of self-reflection, or a lack of pausing to think through a situation rationally.
In Conclusion
This is one of those logical fallacies that doesn’t crop up in arguments very much, but rather in day-to-day life. Keep an eye out for it not only in yourself, but those around you! It’s a very, very common bit of fallacious thinking. But with a little rational thought, you can avoid such pitfalls, as “man, I fly for work on a weekly basis, I’m due for a plane crash” type thinking. Or even letting such thinking bias your decision making by trying to “balance” what you do.
And so, until next time dear readers, keep your cards close to your chest!
Riverboat, ring your bell,
Fare thee well, Annabel.
Luck is the lady that he loves the best.
Natchez to New Orleans
Livin’ on jacks and queens
Maverick is a legend of the west.
Maverick is the legend of the west!
(And how can I talk about the Gamblers Fallacy without adding this in a link?):
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp is a twice weekly series with posts dropping on Wednesdays and Fridays. A companion series, Cognitive Bias Bootcamp, drops on Mondays. If you are new to the series and would like to catch up on past offerings of either, or just want to revisit them, the linked titles are listed below!
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp:
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: The Strawman
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: The Slippery Slope
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Begging the Question
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Poisoning the Well
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: No True Scotsman!
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Ad Hominem
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: False Dilemma
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Non Sequitur
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Red Herring
Cognitive Bias Bootcamp:
Cognitive Bias Bootcamp: Bystander Effect
Cognitive Bias Bootcamp: Curse of Knowledge