Se busca identificar la falacia del jugador, un sesgo habitual en la estimación de probabilidades, en una situación planteada de juego de azar como la ruleta. Se solicitó al entrevistado su acuerdo o no con un criterio de estimación de compensación de rachas presentada en un reactivo y su justificación. Se categorizaron las respuestas de doscientos siete estudiantes ingresantes a la Universidad y se agruparon en tres niveles de comprensión cognitiva. Se destacaron dos tipos de mentalidades, una RACIONAL que apela en mayor o menor grado a intuiciones propias de conceptos probabilísticos y otra que se denominó CABULERA que recurre a la suerte, a las buenas o malas rachas del jugador, más vinculada a lo emocional que a lo racional, esperable debido a la naturaleza de riesgo de ganancia o pérdida del estímulo. Para la muestra estudiada, dos tercios de los entrevistados mostraron una Mentalidad Racional y el tercio restante exhibió una Mentalidad Cabulera. Palabras clave Azar Falacia Jugador Rachas ABSTRACT IDENTIFICATION OF THE GAMBLER’S FALLACY IN A TYPICAL SITUATION OF GAMES OF CHANCE The aim of this brief is to identify the gambler’s fallacy, a habitual feature in the estimate of probabilities in a game of random devices such as the roulette. The interviewees were asked to agree or not with a criterion of an estimate of compensation of strokes of luck presented in an item and their justifications. Two hundred and seven answers from students being admitted to University were grouped in three levels of cognitive understanding. Two types of paths of reasoning stood out: one called RATIONAL, which in a greater or lesser extent appeals to intuitions, typical of concepts of probability. The second path of reasoning called LUCK-CONDITIONED, appeals to a gambler’s good or bad strokes of luck, and is more closely connected with the emotional rather than the rational sphere, which is the expected outcome due to the nature of the risk of winning or losing of the stimulus. In the sample studied, two thirds of the interviewees showed a rational path of reasoning whereas the remaining third showed a luck-conditioned one. Key words Random Fallacy Gambler Luck