I would not be able to put this into symbols, but I ask here because I think it's the correct place to ask.
Would the chance of my parked car getting damaged (bumped or scraped) by other cars parking nearby increase over time?
Gambler's fallacy says: if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future. (wikipedia)
For every time I leave my car parked, there is a chance it will get damaged. If I don't want to commit the gambler's fallacy, I should consider the chance of damage the same every time I park.
But if I park at the same spot every day for many years, the chance that my car would have been damaged after all those years, would surely be greater than if I just parked there one day, right? How does this not contradict the gambler's fallacy?
My insurance company asks a higher premium if I park on the street all year round, than in a garage, so somehow they must figure that the chance is higher than if I just park on the street one day. How does this not contradict the gambler's fallacy?