Ah, good sense from the Wiz, apparently.
The "money management" stop-loss John Patrick malarky is safe enough if that's your thing; however...
Not only can you not "count" on streaks, it goes a LONG way beyond that: streaks do not exist, in any exploitable sense.
It's human nature to try to find order in chaos, recognize the familiar in the foreign or known in the unknown. Unfortunately, these are nothing but mind-tricks, like seeing faces in the clouds. They're "faces" because you recognize them as faces. Unfortunately, they aren't faces.
Yes, "streaks" in gambling exist - IN RETROSPECT ONLY. All you can ever unequivocally state as fact is that you are currently at the end of one! But people say "I'm on a streak"; no, not at all. They are not ON a streak, they are at the END of a streak - because to say the former is to imply some precognitive capacity regarding the future turn of the cards. If you had that, you wouldn't need "streaks"! You'd simply remortgage your house on your guarenteed winning bet, and retire!
But of course you don't do that, because you DON'T have that capacity. All you have is a heightened emotional state resulting from a happy session of gambling. But that session is OVER at any given present moment: it has NO bearing on the future. What are the implications?
If you try to "ride the streak", maybe upping your bets or whatever, what are you REALLY doing? Your simply increasing your losses, because unless you've chanced upon a great single deck game or full pay Deuces Wild or some similar video poker, the house has the advantage. That "hot rush" is in NO way obliged to continue after your next bet. YOU are hot - the cards aren't! Far from winning more, you are in fact LOSING more.
Financial products all carry the famous dislaimer "past growth is not indicative of future performance", or something along those lines.
Why should the PURE mathematics of gambling not be extended the same courtesy?