Blackjack: More likely to win 3

One of my buddies plays blackjack at least 25 days a month. He is not a card counter. He does do bet fluctuations, and plays the optimal strategy in regards to hit, split, double down.. etc.

He was telling me that a blackjack player is more likely to win 3 hands in row than 2 hands.

Now, I know what you're thinking.. In order to win 3 you must win 2 first.. but he is saying that you are "significantly" more likely to see this result:

WWW
than
WWL

Another way to phrase it would be... Given that a player has already won two hands in a row, a blackjack player is more likely to win the third hand than lose the third hand.

I wouldn't know where to begin to do the math to test this... but does anybody have any information on this?

my first thought is that this is saying, in a game that pays even, that it is a positive EV game to the extreme to expect such at any time without counting, especially with occasional 3 to 2 pays too.

A form of gambler's fallacy here?

edited

I agree, it seems to have fault to it... But this person that told me of the more likely to go WWW than WWL .... like...he isn't a person that lies or makes up stories for attention and he researches all sorts of gambling ideas.

The idea seems farfetched, but how am I to disprove it?

8 deck shoe. Now.. for the sake of math he uses optimum strategy.. so for the math, it would ignore standing on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

It would have to research.. Given that the Dealers up card is: A.. then if players cards are BC,, and the BC stands.. if the dealers Down card is D.. player wins.. unless D requires hit.. then if the next card out of shoe is E and E is A2345 lose.. if it is 6789-TJQK lose... and EVERY and ALL Scenarios... and given that two in a row are winners... all of the cards that are now removed from the shoe... will the player hold an advantage.. since the cards played........ ugh.

However.. I think I may have simply solved the question.

Lets say their were no hits.

Dealer 19 vs player 17
Dealer 20 vs player 19

does that mean Dealer is more likely to win hand 3?
What if it is reveresed.

Well.. Dealer MUST hit 16.. Player may stand and "let dealer bust"

my head hurts thinking about it

If a player wins 2 hands in a row, there is a slightly more than even chance that he won because he was playing in a high count section of the shoe. This implies there is a slightly more than even chance the remainder of the deck is actually low count.

Conclusion: WWL is slightly more likely than WWW.

Your analysis is unecessary, the play of one hand does not knowingly influence the next hand. The order of the cards doesn't matter, because any order is possible.

WWL is more likely than WWW because you are more likely to lose a hand than you are to win a hand. Any slight correlation won't even come close to breaking the fact that any random hand you are more likely to lose than win.