I think what the parent post meant is that this reasoning is flawed by assuming the coin spends the same time face-up in the very first iteration as in every ot

I think what the parent post meant is that this reasoning is flawed by assuming the coin spends the same time face-up in the very first iteration as in every other one, and that's a fallacy. To put it simply, assuming a 4 second rotation, the first second will be spent in state A, the next second will be spent equalising the time in both states, the next second will actually put state B second ahead in face-up totals, then reequalizing, ad vitam eternum - which invalidates the article's point about always having one with time at most equal, and one with time at least equal, since they alternate in total face-up time. Edit : Basically, unless you start the coin in the vertical state, the odds-and-even comparison doesn't apply.