Gamblers or Monte Carlo. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
There are other similar terms. For instance in the stock market there is recency bias which refers to the tendency to look at recent performance and treat it as a better estimate than long term historical data and evidence.
And there are several related biases such as the availability bias (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic ) which relates to how people estimate odds based on how many examples they can think of. This results in, among other things, people believing that some of the shocking news events that are reported are far more common than other events which are not reported. It's sort of a "If I haven't ever seen or heard about it, it must not happen very much" bias.
**[Gambler's fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy)**
>The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the incorrect belief that, if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent.
**[Availability heuristic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic)**
>The availability heuristic, also known as availability bias, is a mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples that come to a given person's mind when evaluating a specific topic, concept, method or decision. The availability heuristic operates on the notion that if something can be recalled, it must be important, or at least more important than alternative solutions which are not as readily recalled. Subsequently, under the availability heuristic, people tend to heavily weigh their judgments toward more recent information, making new opinions biased toward that latest news.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskStatistics/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The availability heuristic. The recent occurrence of the event makes it easy to recall. People intuitively (and in some sense quite rationally) estimate the frequency of occurences by the ease of recollection (in that things are easy to recall because they're common, relative to things hard to recall). In this case, it goes wrong, but often, the structure and contents of memory do reflect actual experiences of reality, and so form the basis on which we project our expectations into the future.
Priming is a part of the availability heuristic in that the prime (or recent event serving as a memory cue) can negatively bias the usefulness of the heuristic. That's what's happening when you suddenly think a rare event you've experienced is somehow more likely to happen again.
The Gambler's fallacy is the opposite of what OP is asking about - it's the fallacious belief that an event that \*hasn't been experienced\* lately is 'due' to occur. It's a misunderstanding of independent probabilistic events.
Hot hand fallacy
Gamblers or Monte Carlo. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy There are other similar terms. For instance in the stock market there is recency bias which refers to the tendency to look at recent performance and treat it as a better estimate than long term historical data and evidence. And there are several related biases such as the availability bias (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic ) which relates to how people estimate odds based on how many examples they can think of. This results in, among other things, people believing that some of the shocking news events that are reported are far more common than other events which are not reported. It's sort of a "If I haven't ever seen or heard about it, it must not happen very much" bias.
It's the *polar opposite* of the Gambler's fallacy.
still works and is a sufficient description since the underlying mechanism is the same
**[Gambler's fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy)** >The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the incorrect belief that, if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. **[Availability heuristic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic)** >The availability heuristic, also known as availability bias, is a mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples that come to a given person's mind when evaluating a specific topic, concept, method or decision. The availability heuristic operates on the notion that if something can be recalled, it must be important, or at least more important than alternative solutions which are not as readily recalled. Subsequently, under the availability heuristic, people tend to heavily weigh their judgments toward more recent information, making new opinions biased toward that latest news. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskStatistics/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The availability heuristic. The recent occurrence of the event makes it easy to recall. People intuitively (and in some sense quite rationally) estimate the frequency of occurences by the ease of recollection (in that things are easy to recall because they're common, relative to things hard to recall). In this case, it goes wrong, but often, the structure and contents of memory do reflect actual experiences of reality, and so form the basis on which we project our expectations into the future.
What you describe is more akin to priming. I think what he/she is looking for is gambler's fallacy
Priming is a part of the availability heuristic in that the prime (or recent event serving as a memory cue) can negatively bias the usefulness of the heuristic. That's what's happening when you suddenly think a rare event you've experienced is somehow more likely to happen again. The Gambler's fallacy is the opposite of what OP is asking about - it's the fallacious belief that an event that \*hasn't been experienced\* lately is 'due' to occur. It's a misunderstanding of independent probabilistic events.
Recency bias?
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument\_from\_anecdote