Originally Posted by
Salamander
OK here's a hyper-extreme example.
A capper with a long distinguished career has historically achieved 54%. Amazingly, his model indentifies only two quantum +EV states: a game can be 53.5% or 60%.
Therefore, over a 100 play sample going forward, one would expect 90 of these 53.5% games, and 10 of the 60% games (since overall he is at 54%), with the caveat that you can only actually get what the market gives you. Just taking the liberty of saying the future will stay in line with the long, long past.
So, the more 60% games clumped into a series of 10 consecutive plays, the greater the probability of that 10 game clump having a grouping of more wins is greater than if all 10 games in the grouping were 53.5%.
OP seems to be on the right track.
But...who can tell me why this is still gambler's fallacy?