- 26 -
Respondent attempted to discredit Dr. Pike by claiming her
definition of “gambler’s fallacy” was incorrect. Respondent
relies on a definition of “gambler’s fallacy” he obtained from
Wikipedia. Respondent did not call any witness, or expert
witness, to counter Dr. Pike’s conclusions. Respondent’s
reliance on a definition of “gambler’s fallacy” found in
Wikipedia18 is not persuasive. Dr. Pike and Mr. Nicely, a second
expert witness whose testimony and opinions are discussed in
greater detail infra, credibly explained that there is a
difference in the definition of “gambler’s fallacy” depending on
the field of study--e.g., psychology versus mathematics. We find
Dr. Pike to be credible and rely on her expert opinion.19
Dr. Pike corroborated Mr. Gagliardi’s and Ms. Serum’s
testimony that if Mr. Gagliardi walked out of the casinos with
money, he would return the next day or shortly thereafter and
lose it. Dr. Pike stated that a pathological gambler, such as
Mr. Gagliardi, who walks away from a casino with money will, with
18 Although we conclude that the information respondent
obtained from Wikipedia was not wholly reliable and not
persuasive in the instant case, we make no findings regarding the
reliability, persuasiveness, or use of Wikipedia in general.
19 We note that Dr. Pike testified that, unlike
recreational and problem gamblers, pathological gamblers take the
“gambler’s fallacy” to a delusional level--they believe if they
gamble long enough, they will win back all their losses and even
more. Dr. Pike also opined that, unless treated for his illness,
Mr. Gagliardi will gamble until he dies or loses all his money.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008