Critics claim that these theories, when used as an explanation for fine-tuning, commit the inverse gambler's fallacy.

The inverse gambler's fallacy is unquestionably a fallacy, but there is disagreement over whether and where it has been committed in practice.

The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck.

The inverse gambler's fallacy, named by philosopher Ian Hacking, is a formal fallacy of Bayesian inference which is an inverse of the better known gambler's fallacy.

The man entering the room would commit the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy if he said, "You've probably been rolling the dice for quite a while, since it's unlikely you would get a double-six on your first attempt."

This shows that the presented problem is not the same as Gambler's Fallacy (previous failures indicate increased probability of winning given a fair coin) or Inverse Gambler's Fallacy (a rare win occurring implies previous occurrences given a fair coin).

The reversal is also a fallacy (not to be confused with the inverse gambler's fallacy) in which a gambler may instead decide, after a consistent tendency towards tails, that tails are more likely out of some mystical preconception that fate has thus far allowed for consistent results of tails.