Regression to the Mean vs. Gambler's Fallacy

How do the two ideas NOT condtradict each other? At what point is it safe to say that an event is more likely to occur because it has not occurred as much as expected over a long enough period of time, even though mathematically the probability of an individual trial remains the same?

I was playing a game of Monopoly the other day, and after 7 players each made 10+ trips around the board Indiana Avenue had not yet been landed on. One of my friends insisted that lots of people were going to start landing on it because of the law of averages. At the time it seemed like good logic, but now I'm not so sure because that sounds a lot like the Gambler's Fallacy.

I'm not a master of this stuff so I'm probably missing something easy, but can someone enlighten me?

Thanks.