In this postscript the authors summarize where Sun, Tweney, and Wang (see record 2010-06891-015) now agree with their original analysis and where differences of opinion remain. Sun et al.'s (see record 2010-06891-018) postscript contrasted two positions, one emphasizing the "limited and finite nature of people's experience" and one emphasizing the…

We (Hahn & Warren, 2009) recently proposed a new account of the systematic errors and biases that appear to be present in people's perception of randomly generated events. In a comment on that article, Sun, Tweney, and Wang (2010) critiqued our treatment of the gambler's fallacy. We had argued that this fallacy was less gross an error than it…

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…

In this postscript the authors applaud Hahn and Warren's effort in their reply to remove the ambiguity in distinguishing events such as occurrence, occurrence at least once, and nonoccurrence in Hahn and Warren (2009). Still, it appears that differences between us exist regarding the nature of waiting time and its connections to the probability of…