Informal Fallacy: Gambler's Fallacy

The Fallacy of the Maturity of Chances, also known as the Gambler's Fallacy, is a cognitive bias that occurs when individuals believe that future outcomes will be influenced by past events, despite the events being independent of each other.  It is a common misconception that arises from the incorrect belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or vice versa. This fallacy is based on the mistaken belief that there is a pattern or trend that will eventually reverse itself, leading individuals to make poor decisions based on this faulty reasoning. 

• Examples:

1. In the medical field, if a particular treatment yields positive results in several consecutive patients, one might fallaciously infer that it will be less effective in the next patient, ignoring the randomness of treatment outcomes.
2. In physiology, this fallacy might manifest in the belief that after a string of successful surgeries, a failure is due, ignoring the constant probabilities of success and failure for each procedure. 
3. In medicine and pharmacy, it can be seen when practitioners believe a medication will not work because it has been effective in many consecutive cases, disregarding the consistent efficacy of the drug. 
4. Astronomers might fall prey to this fallacy by expecting a period of comet sightings to be followed by a lull, rather than adhering to statistical predictions. 
5. In dentistry, one might wrongly assume that after several cavity-free patients, a streak of patients with cavities is imminent, rather than evaluating each case on its individual risk factors. 
6. Geneticists must avoid the trap of anticipating a genetic trait to appear less often following a surge in its expression, which would ignore Mendelian laws of inheritance. 
7. Neurologists studying patterns of neural activity could incorrectly predict a decrease in certain brain functions after periods of high activity, not considering the regular variability in brain function. 
8. An investor might believe that after a streak of losses in the stock market, a gain is 'due' and thus invest more heavily, not recognizing that the market's movements are not fully dependent on past performance.
9. A trader expecting a reversal in trend after a long streak of gains or losses, which is a misinterpretation of market behavior since past performance does not necessarily predict future results.
10. Economists might expect a market correction simply because there have been several periods of growth, rather than analyzing market fundamentals. 
11. Consumers expecting a product to go on sale simply because it has been sold at full price for an extended period, disregarding the retailer's pricing strategy and market demand.
12. Consider a series of coin tosses where heads have come up five times in a row; the gambler's fallacy would lead one to erroneously believe that tails is due to appear next, despite each toss being independent with a 50/50 chance. 
13. In politics, the fallacy may lead to the expectation that after a series of election wins by one party, the other is 'due' for a victory, which does not take into account the complexities of voter behavior. 

Conclusion:

It is important to remember that each event is independent and should be evaluated on its own merits, rather than relying on past events to predict future outcomes. This fallacy can lead to poor decision-making based on the incorrect assumption that a random event's probability is influenced by previous occurrences. Understanding this fallacy is crucial for making rational decisions that are not swayed by recent trends or events.

Points to Ponder:

One should not blindly believe on past to predict future but should keep room for distinct features of next event.