The authors are therefore Decitabine retracting this article. MH accepts responsibility for the error. “
“The hot-hand fallacy and gamblers’ fallacy are assumed to be common among gamblers because it

is thought that they believe that outcomes for future bets are predictable from those of previous ones. The term a “hot hand” was initially used in basketball to describe a basketball player who had been very successful in scoring over a short period. It was believed that such a player had a “hot hand” and that other players should pass the ball to him to score more. This term is now used more generally to describe someone who is winning persistently and can be regarded as “in luck”. In gambling scenarios, a player with a genuine hot hand should keep betting and bet more. There have been extensive discussions about

the existence of the hot hand effect. Some researchers have failed to find any evidence of such an effect (Gilovich et al., 1985, Koehler and Conley, 2003, Larkey et al., 1989 and Wardrop, 1999). Others claim there is evidence of the hot hand effect in games that require considerable physical skill, such as golf, darts, and basketball (Arkes, 2010, Arkes, 2011, Gilden and Wilson, 1995 and Yaari and Eisenmann, 2011). People gambling on sports outcomes may continue to do so after winning because they Osimertinib chemical structure believe they have a hot hand. Such a belief may be a fallacy. It is, however, possible that their belief is reasonable. For example, on some occasions, they may realize that their betting strategy is producing profits and that it would be sensible to continue with it. Alternatively, a hot hand could arise from some change in their betting strategy. For example, after winning, they may modify their bets in some way to increase their chances of winning again.

People gambling on sports outcomes may continue to do so after losing because they believe in the gamblers’ fallacy. This is the erroneous belief that deviations from initial expectations are corrected even when outcomes are produced by independent random processes. Thus, people’s initial expectations that, in the long run, tosses of a fair coin will result in a 50:50 chance of heads and tails are associated with a belief that Cepharanthine deviations from that ratio will be corrected. Hence, if five tosses of a fair coin have produced a sequence of five heads, the chance of tails on the next toss will be judged to be larger than 50%. This is because the coin “ought to” have a 50:50 chance of heads and tails in the long run and, as a result, more tails are “needed” to correct the deviation from that ratio produced by the first five tosses. Betting strategies are often based on the previous betting results (Oskarsson, Van Boven, McClelland, & Hastie, 2009). The strategies based on a belief in a hot hand and gamblers’ fallacy may conflict.