Seems like a lot of the argument rests on "Steady, Switchy, Sticky" being the only possible options and their probabilities adding up to 1. That may seem to be

Seems like a lot of the argument rests on "Steady, Switchy, Sticky" being the only possible options and their probabilities adding up to 1. That may seem to be a valid assumption because those correspond to all possible values of the chance of getting heads: greater than, less than, or equal to 50%. But what about the chance that the "koin" is actually controlled by someone malicious? The liklihood of getting heads would have nothing to do with past events; it would just depend on how much money I bet and on which outcome. A paranoid gambler might easily assume this option is on the table. Wouldn't that break the link between "<50%, =50%, >50%" and the concepts of "Steady-ness, Switchy-ness, Sticky-ness"? If so, can you conclude anything about the behavior of the koin since the probabilities of "Steady-ness, Switchy-ness, Sticky-ness" (as concepts) no longer add up to 1?