I think what the author means by "the gamblers fallacy is not a fallacy" is that they are saying "what people commonly call the gamblers fallacy, is not actuall

I think what the author means by "the gamblers fallacy is not a fallacy" is that they are saying "what people commonly call the gamblers fallacy, is not actually a fallacy (and also not the gamblers fallacy)". That is, people are attributing gamblers fallacy to events that are not necessarily independent. And the author uses "koins" as an example for an object that has a 50/50 probability on average, but the flips are actually not independent events. And the author explains how in many cases, people don't know if events are independent (even for coin flips! As the flipping mechanism can introduce correlation between events) so they should be careful when declaring gamblers fallacy