Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2026

Rare Event Detection Using Error-corrected DNA and RNA Sequencing
Published on: August 3, 2018
Occurrence and nonoccurrence of random sequences: comment on Hahn and Warren (2009)
Yanlong Sun1, Ryan D Tweney, Hongbin Wang
1School of Health Information Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, USA. yanlong.sun@uth.tmc.edu
Abstract:
On the basis of the statistical concept of waiting time and on computer simulations of the "probabilities of nonoccurrence" (p. 457) for random sequences, Hahn and Warren (2009) proposed that given people's experience of a finite data stream from the environment, the gambler's fallacy is not as gross an error as it might seem. We deal with two critical issues in Hahn and Warren's argument, a possible ambiguity in distinguishing the events of occurrence and nonoccurrence, and an incomplete consideration of the context in which the statistics of waiting time are defined. Our analyses show that the statistics of waiting time and the probabilities of nonoccurrence, once correctly interpreted, do not vindicate the error in the gambler's fallacy.
Related Concept Videos
Wald-Wolfowitz Runs Test I
The test works...
Random Error
Wald-Wolfowitz Runs Test II
For binary data, runs are identified using symbols such as + and −, or equivalently, 1s and 0s. In...
Random Variables
Uppercase letters such as X or Y denote a random variable. Lowercase letters like x or y denote the value of a random variable. If X is a random variable, then X is written in words, and x is given as a number.
For example, let X = the...
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Random and Systematic Errors

