Talk:Gambler's fallacy

Loot boxes and pity timers.

If you know the exact rate a pity timer pays out, then you can calculate the minimum number of high value items and not Gambler's Fallacy. For example, in Hearthstone there are two pity timers for Legendary Cards. One at the beginning of expansion requires a Legendary card within the first 10 packs. Other than that it requires a Legendary within every 30 pack openings. So buying 100 packs at the beginning of the expansion, your guaranteed 4 Legendary cards at minimum. One within the first 10 and 3 within the next 90 at minimum. https://esports.gg/guides/hearthstone/hearthstone-pity-timer/ 2605:A601:A103:BB00:79:2283:79B5:749F (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Changing intro sentence for emphasis

As title; intro sentence is given below, with proposed change written in italic.

"[Gambler's fallacy] is the false belief that, if an event..."

Although we've already expressed its falcity with the word fallacy itself, (which any reader paying any attention should understand), I think there's no harm in making the point absolutely and unambiguously clear; the word may also serve as an emphasis / intensifier (e.g., "it IS false!").

Also that we should probably start archiving this talk page. It's getting very long. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 03:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is needed, as fallacy is wikilinked and it leads to an element of WP:PLEONASM.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, it's a hilarious yet convincing piece to read. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 08:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Caption on coin toss animation

Original caption ( Feb 2010) explaining that the difference in counts *didn't* approach 0 was correct ("But the *difference* between red and blue does not systematically decrease to zero."), albeit the particular intent of *systematically* certainly could have been clearer. While people may find it surprising, the counts do on average diverge (average gap between them grows): after n tosses they will on average be separated by about 0.8√n. It's particularly important to point this out, since it presents the underlying fact that is misunderstood in the fallacy (the counts continue to drift apart even while the proportions converge to one half, while the fallacy relies on the mistaken idea that the counts tend to get closer together). The caption was shortened in July 2022 (still correct). The caption was later edited - apparently in a good faith attempt to clear up the language - to say the opposite (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gambler%27s_fallacy&oldid=1179961126), which attempted rewording ("but the difference decreases to zero non-systematically.") appears itself to either commit or suggest the Gamblers fallacy. The incorporation of "non-systematically" at the end did not serve to fix the problem - the average distance between the counts continues to get bigger, so it actually does the opposite of decreasing to zero. Even if it could somehow be argued to be correct with some particularly unusual interpretation of "non-systematically", it still leads people to think they tend to get closer together in some fashion in the long run, when they don't. I have changed it to "but the gap between the red and blue counts does not tend to decrease toward zero." in the hope that this will satisfy the various editors desires to be correct (original), succinct (intent of first change) and clear (intent of second change). Glenbarnett (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)