How to Avoid the Gambler’s Fallacy in Poker

You’ve probably never heard of the gambler’s fallacy. If not, read on because if you’re not familiar with it, you’ve likely fallen into its trap and it’s costing you money. The gambler’s fallacy is a condition that besets nearly everyone at various times in their lives. However, as befits the name, it is famously frequent in gamblers and it is, of course, a fallacy. It was discovered by psychologists and has been a topic of study for decades, and the “ol’ perfesser” here is going to give a lecture on it. Get out your notebooks. Gamblers are a superstitious lot – poker players less so than slot junkies, but we’ve got our nutty beliefs. One of them is that “we’re due” to fill a flush, that it’s “our turn” to suck out on the river or that it’s “about time” for us to rack up a 200BB win. We think this because we haven’t filled a flush the last 20 draws, or hit a miracle river card in the last 40 hours of play or had a multiple rack’em up session in months.
Recommended Poker Sites – Editor’s Pick
Image
Arved Klöhn Pokerlistings Author
  • Fact Checked by: PokerListings
  • Last updated on: January 1, 2025

You’re Not Due for Anything in Poker, Ever

It is this belief that is the gambler’s fallacy. And the reason it’s a fallacy is that, no matter what you think, you’re not due for anything, ever!

There is no increase in the likelihood that you will fill your flush just because you’ve missed the past 20. Having gone a hundred hands without hitting a two-outer has no bearing on the next river you pay to see.

I’ve raised this topic with lots of players, some quite skilled. Almost invariably they tell me that they are due, that they have to fill that flush – eventually. When I push them, they typically give me some justification, a rationale that looks, for all the world, like it makes sense.

“Look,” they say, “I’m not stupid. I know that the probability of hitting my flush hasn’t really changed but I also know that things have to work out in the long run. It’s getting to be a ‘long run’ because I haven’t hit one in, like, forever.

“So it has to come along because things have to even out. In fact, that’s what you math guys tell me. All this luck crap evens out in the long run.”

The Long Run is Really, Really Long

If this feels familiar, if you’ve said (or thought) something like this, you’re probably sitting there nodding your head. After all, the belief that the flush card is bloody, freakin’ due is compelling, absolutely haunting.

But is it true? Nope. It’s false. The awful truth is that things do not have to even out. The cards are under no moral stricture to treat you fairly.

And the long run is really, really long. Most people, poker players included, have trouble grasping this compelling mathematical truth.

As a result, they are likely to increase bet size or make marginal calls because they are convinced they are due. The real problem, of course, isn’t the belief; it’s acting on it that puts dents in your bankroll.

Playing cards are made of plastic. They do not have memories. They do not “know” that they just failed to fill your flush, again. They are being shuffled by a dealer or a machine and the order in which they emerged in the past has no bearing on their order in the future.

Each hand is independent of all preceding hands. The probability of filling a flush is not changed by previous outcomes.

There are also, obviously, situations in poker where events are dependent on each other. If you saw someone flash a heart when they mucked their hand and you’re on a flush draw, you know there are only eight hearts left in the deck.

Hence, the probability of hitting your draw is changed by previous events and the way you want to play the hand just changed subtly. Oddly, virtually everyone understands this second “dependent” case, but many, perhaps most, just can’t wrap their brains around the first “independent” one.

Every Person Showed Gambler’s Fallacy

You don’t have to be gambling or at a poker table to see this. Here’s a study done some years back.

People were asked to guess which of two lights on a computer screen would come on. They were told that the sequence was random, that the light on the right was as likely to come on as the left.

Virtually every person playing this “guessing” game showed the gambler’s fallacy. The more often one light came on, the more likely they were to predict the other side.

If there was a really long run, like seven lefts in a row, they picked the right side on the next trial nearly 100% of the time! When asked why, they said that the other one was “due.”

Yes, things do tend to even out in the long run. But note the two qualifiers in that sentence, tend and long run.

“Tend” means just that, tend. It doesn’t mean “must.”

“Long run” implies an infinitely long run for mathematical certainty and, frankly, you don’t have that kind of time. You should not expect, in any relatively short run of events, to see the outcomes conform to theoretical expectations.

They are under no obligation to do so. In fact, they might not even be close.

Gambler’s Fallacy is a Fallacy

The gambler’s fallacy is most seductive, but it is a fallacy. Don’t get suckered into thinking that you’re “due” for anything other than random outcomes. And don’t throw money into a pot based on this belief.

The probabilities have not changed and they don’t give a fat flying fig how many times you missed your flush or how many times you’ve had to buy in already.

OK, if your brain doesn’t hurt now, tune in again next week because I’m going to introduce another topic that you also need to understand, and it’s even more counterintuitive.

It’s the principle known in probability theory as “regression to the mean” and every good poker player understands it – although maybe not explicitly.

Dealing with the Temptation to Chase

When you find yourself saying “I’m overdue for a big hit,” remind yourself that each hand is independent. If you lost ten flush draws in a row, it doesn’t mean the eleventh is more likely to hit.

Try setting concrete rules for yourself:

  • If you lose a specific number of buy-ins, take a short break.
  • If you’re emotionally invested in one particular draw, step back and ask, “Is this truly a good call, or am I just hoping the ‘due’ card appears?”

Convincing yourself you’re “due” often leads to bad calls and bigger losses. Ground your decisions in pot odds and equity, not hunches.

Leaning on Solid Math

Odds and probabilities don’t lie. If you routinely use pot odds and implied odds to inform your draws, you’ll rely less on the gambler’s fallacy. When that voice in your head whispers you’re “due,” remember the shuffle has no memory. It’s not trying to punish or reward you—it’s just randomness at work.

Taking Control of Your Bankroll

Bankroll mismanagement is where the gambler’s fallacy hits hardest. You might decide to chase losses, believing you can’t possibly miss another time. This drains your bankroll faster than you realize. Decide in advance when you’ll quit, whether you’re up or down, and stick to that plan. True discipline saves you from the seductive but dangerous idea of being “due.”

FAQ

Does the gambler’s fallacy ever help me in poker?

Not really. It may give you temporary confidence, but relying on “I’m due” leads to unprofitable decisions in the long run.

Are there times when past events do matter in poker?

Yes, if something changes the number of relevant cards in the deck—like seeing another player’s hand or a card that’s been exposed. Those situations make future outcomes dependent, but random shuffles don’t.

How do I stop believing I’m ‘due’ for a win?

Remind yourself each hand is independent. Practice focusing on strong fundamentals, like pot odds and reading opponents, rather than emotional impulses.

Can I fix the gambler’s fallacy by watching more poker training videos?

Videos and study can help you trust math and strategy over hunches. The key is sticking to logical play when under pressure. Over time, solid study and a disciplined approach diminish any urge to chase on a whim.

What about ‘regression to the mean’? Isn’t that the same as being ‘due’?

They’re related but not the same. Regression to the mean means long-term results often hover near your true skill level. It doesn’t mean a losing streak magically flips into a hot streak. Don’t confuse these two ideas.

Recommended