This is not true. If the coins are designed in such a way that they are biased to produce those results at 120 degrees apart, it would not be at odds with probability. The problem with bells theorem which many people still fail to realize to their own undoing is that it is only valid within the assumptions it is predicated on. But there are several problems with bells assumptions, or more specifically his understanding of the meaning of probability. For example According to Bell, in a local causal theory, if x has no causal effect on Y, P(Y|xZ) = P(Y|Z) (J.S. Bell, "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics", 1989) However this is false, as explained in (ET Jaynes, "Clearing up mysteries, the original goal", 1989), P(Y|xZ) = P(x|YZ) in a local causal theory. This is easily verified: Consider an urn with two balls, one red and one white (Z). A blind monkey draws the balls, the first with the right hand and second with the left hand. Certainly the second draw can not have a causal effect on the first draw? Set Y to be "First draw is a red ball" and x to be Second draw is a red ball. Exp 1. Monkey shows you the ball in his left hand (second draw) and it is white. What is p(Y|xZ). The correct answer is 1. However, according to Bell and believers, since the second draw does not have a causal effect on the first, p(Y|xZ) should be the same as P(Y|Z) = 1/2 ??? This is patently false. Bells problem is that he did not realize the difference between "logical independence" and "physical independence" with the consequence that whatever notion of locality he was representing in his equations is not equivalent to Einstein's.