You CAN make a case that the next game outcome is somewhat related
to the previous games' outcomes. If a player's basket is faulty
or his shoulder is hurt, that may, indeed, influence the outcome
of that and future games. But, cases like that, or players tiring
(as mentioned below) still don't have anything to do with specific
numbers or combos. After all, the posts are changing every game.
So, just because you could say that a win by #3 in the current
game is less likely than #3 'normally' would be (because he's
playing hurt), DOESN'T mean that #3 (taken just as a number) is
more, or less, 'due'. It will be easier to discuss if we restrict
ourselves to coin flips (just to eliminate the jai-alai game variability)
'cause that's where the faulty 'dueness' assumptions are based
- i.e., in RAW mathematical statistics.
Simply stated, a number cannot become 'due'. I realize,
however, that for those of you who didn't pay attention in statistics
class, I could say this, to no avail, until I was blue in the
face, so I'm not going to try to convert you. It would be like
trying to talk Bada out of fixed odds betting. If you're so convinced
that the so-called "Law of Averages" says I'm wrong,
then I'm happy to be betting against you, since you're probably
making other preposterous assumptions, too.
