Hmm. So Brad Mills fancies himself a card player. The unfortunate part: he doesn't appear to be very good at it.â†µ
You see, Sunday afternoon's game came down to a bit of a critical situation. 1 on, 2 outs, Top of the 10th, tied 4 all. Vlad Guerrero coming to the plate, with Josh Hamilton on deck. Guerrero to that point had gone 0-for-5 where as Hamilton was 4-for-5. One line of logic would be, "Hamilton's seeing the ball really well today, let's go with the colder (and logically less confident) Guerrero and take our chances." The other would be what's commonly referred to the gambler's fallacy. Take it away Wikipedia:â†µ
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (due to its significance in a Monte Carlo casino in 1913) or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future.â†µ
For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses. Such an expectation could be mistakenly referred to as being due.â†µ
After intentionally walking Guerrero, Hamilton promptly singled to right driving in the game's go ahead and ultimately winning run. Brad Mills bet against the horse that had came in first his previous five races, and the Astros were swept by the Rangers 5-4.