Unfortunately the thesis is wrong. Knowing an outcome would always be 50/50 a gambler would be inclined to make the 'fallacious' assumption that string of hea

Unfortunately the thesis is wrong. Knowing an outcome would always be 50/50 a gambler would be inclined to make the 'fallacious' assumption that string of heads would likely to be yield heads. The argument made is that someone would not make that assumption! Because it's irrational. And then through a very long winded and unnecessary example ... posits another kind of coin toss ('koins'), where the 50/50 ratio is not necessarily known, it might make sense to actually bet heads after a string of heads. The 'fallacy' in the thesis, is that even when gamblers know the odds which is to say, rationally, we know it's 50/50 ... we will still, intuitively want to be to on heads, after a string of heads. Our 'instincts' want to see dependent results where there are none, which is the basis of the very real fallacy. I don't know why pages and pages were focused on creating a contrived example when a one sentence description might have sufficed, maybe I missed something ...