I was playing a low stakes sng and got 3 hands of diamonds in a row.
The first Qd Jd and second 9d 3d were big and small blind, so I limped in, the flop came without diamonds on both and I got out. The third hand was 9d 4d and I was thinking 'well there weren't any diamonds on the last 2 flops so maybe I'll get some this time', so I called it (I wouldn't usually call 94 suited even with small blinds), two diamonds came on the flop, I bet just a little then the turn was a diamond, bingo. I bet fairly big and had 1 caller (I think he maybe had 1 high diamond) the river was a blank, and I won a reasonable pot.
I reckon thinking that 'well there weren't any diamonds on the last 2 flops so maybe I'll get some this time' was wrong, as statistically there was no more chance of diamonds appearing then than at any other time.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Coincidence has no memory.

What you actually are saying is:
I roll a dice, trying to get a six. That chance is 1/6
I rolled 5 times, but still no six
The sixth time IT HAS TO BE A SIX, because the previous times the six didnt come up.

Which is, ofcourse, not true.

great! true......

__________________
i must be blessed cuz im in badbeat heaven

statistically your odds increased to get the diamonds on the third hand.


sometimes there are to many coincidences to be a coincidence


your question is it flawed logic?
I would have to say no

Hmmm... Interesting. So what you're talking about Assistanc3 is the law of averages: everything evens out in the end.
Sounds good to me. Anyone disagree with the 'law of averages'?

I see we're back to the gamblers fallacy discussions. Dunbar has it correct.

The odds don't change with each roll. Each roll has a 1 in 6 chance of being a 6.

Its the same for your poker hands. 1 has nothing to do with the next.

__________________
Use Bonus Code: PKRN50 with your first PKR deposit and get $250 free.



Visit our other websites...
Casino Games - Online Slots - PKR Poker Bonus Codes - Poker Forums - Cake Poker Rakeback -- PKR Casino - Carbon Poker - Casino Forum

exactly, and that is how odds are made
dig deeper Hellwung, and u will see more.

its not a fallacy when its mathematically proven
and Dunbars comparison to rolling dice couldn't be any more further from correct.

Assistanc3, reread the original post and tell me that's not gamblers fallacy.

One hand ad nothing to do with the next

__________________
Use Bonus Code: PKRN50 with your first PKR deposit and get $250 free.



Visit our other websites...
Casino Games - Online Slots - PKR Poker Bonus Codes - Poker Forums - Cake Poker Rakeback -- PKR Casino - Carbon Poker - Casino Forum

Well all I can say is fallacy or not, on this occassion it worked (I felt due for some diamonds and they came) which of course proves nothing.

The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a coin. With a fair coin the chances of getting heads are exactly 0.5 (one in two). The chances of it coming up heads twice in a row are 0.5×0.5=0.25 (one in four). The probability of three heads in a row is 0.5×0.5×0.5= 0.125 (one in eight) and so on.

Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row. A believer in the gambler's fallacy might say, "If the next coin flipped were to come up heads, it would generate a run of five successive heads. The probability of a run of five successive heads is (1 / 2)5 = 1 / 32; therefore, the next coin flipped only has a 1 in 32 chance of coming up heads."

This is the fallacious step in the argument. If the coin is fair, then by definition the probability of tails must always be 0.5, never more or less, and the probability of heads must always be 0.5, never less (or more). While a run of five heads is only 1 in 32 (0.03125), it is 1 in 32 before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so they do not count. The probability of five consecutive heads is the same as four successive heads followed by one tails. Tails is no more likely. In fact, the calculation of the 1 in 32 probability relied on the assumption that heads and tails are equally likely at every step. Each of the two possible outcomes has equal probability no matter how many times the coin has been flipped previously and no matter what the result. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses is the fallacy. The fallacy is the idea that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds of a bet in the future. This kind of logic would only work if we had to guess all the tosses' results 'before' they are carried out. Let's say we are gambling on a HHHHH result, that is likely to constitute the significantly lesser chance to succeed.

Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is important to remember that the Law of Large Numbers only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations are considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will converge to the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others.

Law of large numbers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia