> After all, knowing that the tosses are independent is just knowing that a heads is not more (or less) likely after a string of tails; therefore anyone who thinks that a heads is more likely after a string of tails does not know that the tosses are independent.
I think you could similarly dismiss any formal fallacy. The fact that X implies Y and some accept X (coin tosses are independent) but not Y (results are not more likely when "overdue") is what makes it a fallacy.
From then on the post redefines gambler's fallacy to a scenario in which you know the outcome percentage but not if results are independent. Still an interesting post, but not really what I've seen meant by gambler's fallacy.
I think you could similarly dismiss any formal fallacy. The fact that X implies Y and some accept X (coin tosses are independent) but not Y (results are not more likely when "overdue") is what makes it a fallacy.
From then on the post redefines gambler's fallacy to a scenario in which you know the outcome percentage but not if results are independent. Still an interesting post, but not really what I've seen meant by gambler's fallacy.