trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

The gambler's fallacy involves the belief that a conditioned probability exists between an event and the previous one when the two events are independent.

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
5 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that the gambler's fallacy involves the belief that a conditioned probability exists between an event and the previous one when the two events are independent?

Yes. The gambler's fallacy is a well-documented cognitive bias wherein individuals incorrectly assume that a conditional probability exists between independent random events.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 5 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The retrieved literature consistently defines and examines the gambler's fallacy as a cognitive bias regarding independent events (such as coin tosses or roulette outcomes), where individuals expect subsequent events to compensate for past outcomes despite statistical independence. Multiple papers (e.g., [0], [4], [9]) directly support this definition.

Evidence for · 5
Biases in casino betting: The hot hand and the gambler’s fallacy
2006
The paper examines the gambler's fallacy as a misperception of randomness involving independent events.
Get citation
Sundali, J. & Croson, R. (2006). Biases in casino betting: The hot hand and the gambler’s fallacy. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500000309

See more details
More for · 4
An fMRI study of risk-taking following wins and losses: implications for the gambler's fallacy.
2011
The study explores decision-making and biases involving independent random events, aligning with the premise of the gambler's fallacy.
Get citation
G, X., Z, L., IP, L., & A, B. (2011). An fMRI study of risk-taking following wins and losses: implications for the gambler's fallacy.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21015

Gambler’s fallacy, hot hand belief, and the time of patterns
2010
The article classifies the gambler's fallacy as a fundamental human misperception of random sequential events.
Get citation
Sun, Y. & Wang, H. (2010). Gambler’s fallacy, hot hand belief, and the time of patterns. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1017/s193029750000098x

Cognitive distortions among older adult gamblers in an Asian context.
2017
The research identifies the gambler's fallacy as a cognitive distortion involving incorrect probability expectations in gambling contexts.
Get citation
M, S., SA, C., C, B., & S, T. (2017). Cognitive distortions among older adult gamblers in an Asian context.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178036

Predicting Outcomes in a Sequence of Binary Events: Belief Updating and Gambler's Fallacy Reasoning
2023
The experiments demonstrate that the gambler's fallacy arises when observers evaluate independent sequential outcomes from a random mechanism.
Get citation
Rao, K. & Hastie, R. (2023). Predicting Outcomes in a Sequence of Binary Events: Belief Updating and Gambler's Fallacy Reasoning. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13211

What does the evidence say?

The retrieved literature consistently defines and examines the gambler's fallacy as a cognitive bias regarding independent events (such as coin tosses or roulette outcomes), where individuals expect subsequent events to compensate for past outcomes despite statistical independence. Multiple papers (e.g., [0], [4], [9]) directly support this definition.

Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work