From the paper > We observe that the canonical study in the influential hot hand fallacy literature [2],Gilovich, Vallone, and Tversky(1985), along w

From the paper > We observe that the canonical study in the influential hot hand fallacy literature [2],Gilovich, Vallone, and Tversky(1985), along with replications, have mistakenly employed a biased selection procedure that is analogous to Jack’s. Upon conducting a de-biased analysis, we find that the longstanding conclusions of the canonical study are reversed. > [2] The hot hand fallacy has been given considerable weight as a candidate explanation for various puzzles and behavioral anomalies identified in the domains of financial markets, sports wagering, casino gambling,and lotteries (Arkes(2011),Avery and Chevalier(1999),Barberis and Thaler(2003),Brown and Sauer(1993),Camerer(1989),Croson and Sundali(2005),De Bondt(1993),Long et al.(1991),Durham, Hertzel, and Martin(2005),Galbo-Jørgensen, Suetens, and Tyran(2016),Guryan and Kearney(2008),Kahneman andRiepe(1998),Lee and Smith(2002),Loh and Warachka(2012),Malkiel(2011),Narayanan and Manchanda(2012),Paul and Weinbach(2005),Rabin and Vayanos(2010),Sinkey and Logan(2013),Smith, Levere, and Kurtzman(2009),Sundali and Croson(2006),Xu and Harvey(2014),Yuan, Sun, and Siu(2014)) Their claim is that people do apply "arbitrary preconditions" in the analysis of various situations.