You lose at cards. Suppose the chances that the other person was card counting, P, is 1/1000.
You lose at cards again. This time, the chances that this person was counting cards, B, is 1/100.
The chances of B and not P is let's suppose 1/4, as it involves very similar pathways, motives, skills, character etc.
What is the updated chance of P?
Is it a fallacy to not update your belief in P (the chances that they were originally card counting) assuming that card counting B would be linked to card counting P?
I think it's the fallacy of exclusion.