That's one of the worst articles I've ever read, and is complete RJ Bell-style sensationalism. When you get to the bottom of that study, you see that they make no effort to adjust for the odds, and that the people on the "hot streaks" are betting larger favorites, and they explicitly mention that the bettors on "hot streaks" lost a lot more money than the people on "cold streaks."
So the conclusion of the study is basically "betting heavy favorites will make you more likely to have a winning streak of X than betting dogs, but you will lose more money." No shit. But instead these clowns interpret it as "gamblers fallacy is real!" to grab attention and clicks on the article.
StJoes0610
Senior Member
Comments
So the conclusion of the study is basically "betting heavy favorites will make you more likely to have a winning streak of X than betting dogs, but you will lose more money." No shit. But instead these clowns interpret it as "gamblers fallacy is real!" to grab attention and clicks on the article.