I'm hesitant to post the following as I suspect I will get pummelled, but here goes:

Situation A: Consider a lone slot machine patron in a casino with 150 slot machines at 10 am on a Tuesday. It has been 'dead' in the casino with respect to the slots for the 24 hours prior to her arrival, and the slot machines were barely touched. She plays $1.00 per pull, and she pulls a total of 10 times from each of the 150 machines.

Situation B: Consider the same lone patron in the same casino playing, again, $1.00 per pull, and she again pulls a total of 10 times from each of the 150 machines. But in this situation, the casino was PACKED in the 24 hours prior to her arrival, and each slot machine was played A LOT.

Is it Voodoo thinking to say that she is more likely to make more money (or lose less money) in Situation B because much more of the losing pulls (which of course greatly outnumber the winning pulls) were 'eaten up' by the plethora of patrons in the previous busy 24 hours? (But, in the same vein, the WINNING pulls were ALSO 'eaten up' by the patrons in the previous 24 hours, thus - Vooodoo thinking, correct?)

But let's assume that each slot pays an average of $100 in 5 pulls out of every 200 pulls (I am just making these numbers up). So, 195 pulls are losing pulls. Isn't it better to have a packed casino 'eat up' the 98% or so of the losing pulls, and, sure, SOME of the winning pulls, than to play in Situation A. In other words, isn't she more likely to play slot machines that are just about to win in Situation B vs. Situation A due to the sheer number of gross losing pulls eliminated by other patrons in Situation B? Or is it simply a matter of proportionality?