I think it's you who doesn't understand probability - go Google the Gambler's Fallacy to see why you're wrong.
Well, glad to see I'm not the only one who understands this. I thought this was common knowledge. Kids stuff. I found it odd that people were arguing with me. Welcome to the internet.
You're both dumb-asses.
The Gambler's Fallacy pertains to the FALLACY of believing in an INCREASED probability of a particular outcome based on past outcomes. I.E. believing that since the coin flipped heads 80/100 tosses that tails is SURELY due to come out ahead over the next 100 tosses.
This doesn't change the FACT that a coin flipped X number of times still maintains a 50/50 probability of being heads or tails. In a sufficiently large sample size, a natural distribution nearing a perfect 50/50 ratio will emerge.
Bitcoin hashing is ALSO such a distributed probability. In the example of MtRed, their probability of uncovering blocks at the same rate they had been is not diminished OR increased, it's just PROBABLE based on the natural distribution, that they will not maintain such luck, and will in fact over time see a smaller number of block awards over the same time frame as the distribution equalizes over the rest of the network.
Fucking bloody hell you wikipedians...
Take a fucking course in logic.
Yes you are right, it is unlikely that they will maintain such luck. But it is just as unlikely that they will go on a dry spell, as originally suggested. Most likely, they will continue creating block at about the rate they should given their hashing power.
Someone said "They're likely in for a long walk of shame when few/no blocks show up for an entire difficulty tier...". They are not likely that just because they've had some good fortune.
Someone also said "Also, that probability will still throw huge gains at an agent, followed by an equally brutal dearth of gains, over time." That isn't how probability works. One has no reason to follow the other.