The Gambler's Fallacy (AKA Monte Carlo Fallacy or Fallacy of Statistics) Explained in One Minute

The Gambler's Fallacy (also called the Monte Carlo Fallacy and, less frequently, the Fallacy of Statistics) is basically a logical fallacy that makes people believe that past performance matters when it comes to statistically independent events.
Hint: it doesn't.
However, as this explanation of the Gambler's Fallacy will hopefully make clear, not all events are statistically independent.
In other words, if one scenarios involves rolling a dice and another one involves drawing cards from a deck, the Gambler's Fallacy only applies to one.
After watching this video, you'll know what the Gambler's Fallacy is, which scenarios the Gambler's Fallacy applies to and, most importantly, which mistakes a simple explanation of the Gambler's Fallacy can help you avoid.
To support the channel, give me a minute (see what I did there?) of your time by visiting OneMinuteEconomics.com and reading my message.
Bitcoin donations can be sent to 1AFYgM8Cmiiu5HjcXaP5aS1fEBJ5n3VDck and PayPal donations to [e-mail], any and all support is greatly appreciated!
Oh and I've also started playing around with Patreon, my link is:
/ oneminuteeconomics
Interested in reading a good book?
My first book, Wealth Management 2.0 (through which I do my best to help people manage their wealth properly, whether we're talking about someone who has a huge amount of money at his disposal or someone who is still living paycheck to paycheck), can be bought using the links below:
Amazon - www.amazon.com...
Barnes & Noble - www.barnesandno...
iBooks (Apple) - itun.es/us/wYS...
Kobo - store.kobobook...
My second book, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller The Age of Anomaly (through which I help people prepare for financial calamities and become more financially resilient in general), can be bought using the links below.
Amazon - www.amazon.com...
Barnes & Noble - www.barnesandn...
iBooks (Apple) - itunes.apple.c...
Kobo - www.kobo.com/w...
Last but not least, if you'd like to follow me on social media, use one of the links below:
/ oneminuteeconomics
/ andreipolgar
/ andrei-polgar-9a11a561

[@OneMinuteEconomics]

GiganticWebsites.com is a project through which I make it possible for people to build truly gigantic websites (thousands of articles each!) at ridiculously low prices. If you have a great domain you want to turn into an amazing website or an existing site you'd like to upgrade/scale, visit our website or check out the One Minute Economics presentation video below:
ruclips.net/video/gE8yEOQFMvo/видео.html
Please note that this comment is not an ad for a third-party service provider. GiganticWebsites.com is my baby 100% and I will personally be involved in each and every project so as to ensure the website turns out great :)

[@OneMinuteEconomics]

One Minute Economics needs your help! Please give me a minute (heh) of your time by watching the following video if you find the channel useful, literally anyone can help (either financially or by spreading the word about my work): ruclips.net/video/io04ckq1X1M/видео.html

[@gahbah274]

How would this apply to say, the effectiveness of birth control. It's said to be 99% effective. Does that mean there is a 64% chance after 100 times you will have a baby? Or is that a fallacy?

[@illyrian8330]

I think this is a fallacy, because the other people using birth control have no effect whatsoever on your birth control. If you compare it to the example in this video with the poker game, the chance of drawing an ace does change when one out of four aces are gone. It has a direct effect on the probability of drawing another ace.

[@kellion980]

I know this comment is 5 years old, but birth control effectiveness tends to be measured per couple per year, NOT per intimate encounter. Your maths would be correct if it was 99% per encounter, but it's 99% per year of regular encounters

[@opaulodetarso]

Tô achando a locução muito acelerada pra forçar que o vídeo tenha um minuto. Não acho que o vídeo obrigatoriamente precise durar um minuto.

[@fundubits5243]

It is silly to say 5.EightyEight

[@NeverlandSystemZor]

Same with scratch cards or slot machines

[@OneMinuteEconomics]

:(