I have never believed in streakiness. I have always found the idea of raising/lowering one's bet simply because of winning/losing a previous hand mathematically ignorant. However, when reading Professional Blackjack, table 97 (One Player, $100 Bets, Six Unshuffled Decks, Lay and Pay) depicts simulated results for entirely unshuffled play that seem to suggest it does hold merit. The ultimate conclusion in the text is it confirms the nonexistence of streakiness at this extreme.
My issue with this interpretation (and I would like to be told I am wrong, which is the reason for posting) is that the claim is made off the basis of the next SHOE (not hand) having nothing to do with the previous shoe. However, the data presented within each of 1,044,254 shoes shows 213,082 (over 20%) of shoes yielding extreme gains or losses (the highest depicted in the chart). If there were just a few categories, I wouldn't think much of it, but there are 21 categories.
Doesn't this imply that WITHIN an unshuffled shoe (or even a poorly shuffled or not perfectly randomly shuffled shoe), "streaks" (both positive and negative) may occur more than mathematical simulations would suggest?
