BUT if you are using some kind of trigger system in your interrupted streams, you will definitely achieve a noticeable difference when compared to the uniterrupted stream.
I’ll be constantly betting for one of the last two numbers to repeat, with some hedging bets around the sixlines, dozens, and EC’s.
Playing an uninterrupted stream, the longer the game goes on the more eventually probable one of the last two will repeat, and the progression helps recover funds when that happens. (Actually this system works the other way around as it's the combination of "hedging bets" that are designed to make the profit, and the "bet on the last two numbers" is partially or fully absorbed by the hedged bets. When a repeat does occur the bankroll gets a boost)
Placing the bet grows in complexity, ranging from as little as 7 and up to 18 layout positions, and the bankroll needs constant updating to size the next bet. Therefore to play with confidence the system needs a slow table. From my experience, sometimes a slow table can be too slow, and sometimes a slow table can spontaneously get fast, putting you under too much pressure.
The best solution would be to approach a selected table only after the next bet has been calculated and organised. Just pick your moment, walk up and place your chips. To this end I need to be confident that even though splitting the game up by two spins at a time from different tables, one of the last two numbers will repeat at much the same rate as if I were only playing one table.
My feeling is that it should be much the same, but I can’t completely shake the feeling that it won’t.
Do you think this comparison is something you could simulate over large sample sizes?
I guess you'd need an rng stream that only seeds once, and another that re-seeds after every three spins. Three spins because you need each third spin for a result.