Gambling and diagnostics are related, but strangely reversed, in the way that prior events can affect our clinical judgements
The year was 1913; the location, the roulette tables of a Monte Carlo casino. For the previous 10 spins of the wheel, the ball had landed on black. A red was overdue, so the punters began to bet more aggressively against the trend. But the 11th spin produced yet another black number. As did the 12th, and the 13th ... and the longer the run of blacks continued, the more convinced the gamblers became that the subsequent spin would yield a red. Their wagers accelerated. Their losses snowballed. For it was only after 26 consecutive black numbers (by which time few could afford to continue betting) that the streak finally came to an end. It was perhaps the most profitable night in the casino’s history: records were set, fortunes were lost, and the “Monte Carlo fallacy” was born.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, NSW.
- 1. Carroll RT. Gambler’s fallacy. The skeptic’s dictionary. http://skepdic.com/gamblers.html (accessed Aug 2011).
- 2. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974; 185: 1124-1131.