Yeah, unless there's something else going on, every random number generated is supposed to be independent of the previous result. This is a whole field of study, to find a formula that isn't predictable, since computers can't really using human methods of generating random numbers (fair dice, spinning a wheel, flipping a coin, exc), but that's more detail I'm not going to go into.
As was mentioned, the gambler's fallacy assumes that the more negative results you had, the more likely you're to have a positive result. As an example, roulette has a basic bet on red or black. Many gamblers will see a string of red and think "It must be about to hit black" and bet on black. But each spin of the wheel is independent, having between a 48.6 and 46.2 percent chance of hitting either a red or black space (depending on the number of green house wins spaces). It doesn't matter how many times the same color is picked, each individual spin has the same odds (assuming a fair table).
What you did is assume the full string of your results is the odds of getting the final result. So in roulette this would be (using 50% for simplicity) thinking that the table rolls red 4 times, then it only has a 3.125 (.5^5) percent chance of getting red again on the next spin. The odds of the specific streak of red is low, but that doesn't change the odds of each spin, since there's no memory in the system of the previous spins.
Video games often have some kind of pity / anti-frustration feature with required things like this. This can be having a memory of previous results, forcing a result, or having some other way around the RNG. In this case, as was just posted, there's a specific location to get the lighter fluid 100% of the time and a low chance all other areas.
