> In reality, if you don't know what's true Right, so in that case it isn't clear that the committing the Gambler's Fallacy is going to fare any worse than oth

> In reality, if you don't know what's true Right, so in that case it isn't clear that the committing the Gambler's Fallacy is going to fare any worse than other prediction models. This is IMHO the best kind of nonsense -- by its own "nonsensical" arguments, it shows that the textbook-derived arguments aren't really that great either. Seriously, as the article points out, a lot about probability are just tautological based on artificial assumptions -- eg. "assume a fair coin", but of course coin tosses in the physical world aren't 100% fair. I think the author will agree with your sentiment that people assuming convenient models is the problem. If I understand the article correctly, it wasn't to make the assumption as a general statement about coin/koin tosses, but to illustrate alternative processes/models over the textbook "fair coin toss", which in itself, has been demonstrated to be not so fair in empirical studies.