Disliked{quote}[/highlight]...I get that, of course and you are absolutely correct. The key, as you know, is highlighted: '...as the probability of a loss after a winning run increases. ''as actually, it isn't in normal circumstances. However, the way you are using the term, is skewed by the fact that you have the data to show strike-rate at a certain level. That's what I am getting at. With your data added, that isn't actually simply letting probability play out any more, as your data now gives you ...''as the probability of a loss after a winningIgnored

No matter what the strike rate of

*anything*is, the

*likelihood*may be greater in the viewer's eyes but the

*probability*is not.

This guy explains it a heck of a lot better than I do:

Inserted Video

2