> This is straight up false because you know a priori that the chance is 50-50. It’s gamblers fallacy if you know the events are independent. Odd, it's almost

> This is straight up false because you know a priori that the chance is 50-50. It’s gamblers fallacy if you know the events are independent. Odd, it's almost like you stopped reading before you got to the meat of the argument, which is that correlated events can still have a 50% chance of occurring on average. We very carefully weren't told in the article that koin events are independent, this is a setup for the entire point of the article.