(upbeat music) (coin spinning) – So let’s say you’re

flipping a coin with someone, and the first time you

flip it’s heads, next time you flip it’s heads again,

you keep on flipping for 10 coin flips in a row. It keeps on landing heads. At some point you’re going

to start expecting that the next coin flip is now

more likely to be tails, and that’s what we call

the Gambler’s Fallacy. (coin spinning) (upbeat music) In reality, when you’re flipping coins, the probability of that

next coin flip landing heads or tails is always exactly 50%. It doesn’t change even if you’ve had a long streak of heads. We look at how the

Gambler’s Fallacy can bias and lead to mistakes in

everyday decision making. (coin spinning) For example, we show in the

setting of loan officers who are screening loan files,

that they are more likely to reject the current loan

file that they’re looking at, if they just granted a loan

to the previous applicant. We would estimate that

5% of loan decisions would have gone the other way,

if not for this type of bias. Most of the previous research

on the Gambler’s Fallacy has focused on bringing people

into a laboratory setting and studying their behavior within that experimental setting. Our paper instead looks at

real data on people making decisions as part of their everyday jobs. So we’re looking at sequences

of real asylum decisions made on refugee applicants. Now, refugees, once they’re

in the US, can petition for asylum to stay in the US, so that they’re not

deported and threatened with persecution back

in their home countries. What we find is that asylum

judges in the US are more likely to grant asylum to the

current refugee applicant, if they just denied asylum

to the previous applicant. And similarly if they just rejected asylum for the previous applicant,

they’re more likely to grant asylum to the current applicant. This is a serious problem

because we want to grant asylum to the most

deserving of applicants, because each refugee

applicant’s life is at stake with this type of decision. (coin spinning) So whether you’re flipping a coin, or you’re a judge deciding

whether or not to grant asylum, hopefully by becoming

aware of this type of bias, your decisions will no longer be swayed by previous outcomes. (coin spinning)

If you've flipped a coin 10 times and it has landed on heads 10 times and continues to do so, the odds probably aren't 50/50.

Really confused how that analogy (the math of which was not explained) ties into authorities making less than fully informed decisions on what decides if an applicant should pass.

cool, thanks for explaining

Would writing a multiple choice test, and answering C three times in a row, then assuming the next answer is LESS likely to be C, an example of Gamblers Fallacy?

Alright i do not understand because say you have two dices and you throw them at the same time the odds of getting 2 is 1/36 right?

now say you throw the first dice and after observing the outcome throw the second one are the odds of getting 1 on both 1/36 or 1/6????

1:45 she said the judge was more likely to grant access to the current one if s/he denied the second one twice when she meant to say opposite 😂😂😂

So basically my whole life is a lie now, always have I not depended but on luck, and at these ferocious and uncertain times probability giveth and taketh away.

It's a PARADOX, because if the number of heads and tails is equal, then if it goes out of balance, it MUST eventually go back into balance, so the odds MUST change, but you just never know when this is going to take place. If you flip a coin 50 times, and heads come up most often, then I guarantee that MOST OF THE TIME, in the next 50 flips tails will come up most often. Because probability DEMANDS it!

I too don't understand how this relates to decision making concerning non-random things like weighing the pros and cons of whether to do this or that. Only fools would be influenced by their previous decisions in this strange way. Oh, yes, that's the majority of people, they behave in very strange ways. Yes, it makes sense now.

If every toss of a coin has the chance of getting heads of 50%, do 10 consecutive tosses have 50% chance of getting heads every time?

The other fallacy of their is to think if they are in losing series by keep playing OR even worse, increasing the bet can turn the tide of fortune.

No you can't! You only keep piling up the losses until you go completely bankrupt.

The only thing you can do to quit as long you have something remain. Your dignity, and honor included….

And i saying this out of experience i had played a lot of this kind of games, and i always kept winning came out with positive balance simply because i KNOW when someone absolutely MUST quit.

I takes a lot of willpower to muster but either this or you lose big time! But even if you are this good, you have the gut instinct at your side, to know when and HOW you bet, sooner or later you will going to lose. Simply because the odds are not in your favor.

Which means sooner or later you must entirely quit gambling and sure as hell you can't make it into a habit. Otherwise? See above.