What the hell is the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy? It's easy to explain with an example:
This is a fallacy because, regardless of whether the dice have been rolled once or a million times, the odds of a double-six on that particular occasion are 1 in 36.
I discuss elsewhere an argument that the fine tuning of our universe is evidence for multiple universes. A universe fit for life is remarkably unlikely, unless there are a great many universes. However, some suggest that this line of reasoning commits the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy.
Here's why it doesn't. (I'm essentially following John Leslie's well-known paper.)
If we were standing outside the universe looking in, and we found that it happened to contain life, this would be no argument for other universes. The odds of one particular universe having life should be the same regardless of whether there are others.
However, we are actually in such a universe, and therefore can't help but find that the universe we're looking at contains life. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here. So, our situation is not analogous to the man in the example above.
Leslie gives another example of reasoning from an unlikely event; one which more closely matches our own position in the universe.
The point is that he does not witness a random dice roll, but rather is only allowed to witness a double-six. By analogy, we do not experience a universe chosen at random, but rather are only "allowed" to experience a universe where life is possible.