Does the longer you go without a win make a difference if you know its coming before a certain point?

Imo, yes.

If we have the luck to find a slight edge, I'd prefer to place my higher bets just after a given losing sequence.

Of course because long term evidences have shown me that, for example, the sequence LLLW is greater than the counterpart LLLL after tax.

Clearly, to admit that the sequence LLLW is greater than the LLLL it means the whole method must globally produce more W than L. That's a sort of incentive to bet every hand but unfortunately many shoes will produce few W and many L and the future recovering after such shoes might be a harsh thing to do.

Moreover, I found that not every sequence is proportionally placed as mathematics will dictate.

I'm talking about W singles vs W streaks; W2 vs W2+, etc.

Hence, imo if a given method produces itlr more W than L, mostly it's because the W long streaks are "longer" than the L streaks, rather than expecting other unbalanced ratios (W singles vs W streaks, for example).

Let's think about those shoes when a single streak of 4+ won't appear at Player chance or those shoes where we cannot find a couple of consecutive singles on B side.

Imo, selecting some rare spots is a sensible way to reduce variance and to get more precision (edge and control) on our bets.

Naturally, we have to be assured that the searched spot is really getting us a long term edge after thousands and thousands of tests.

Just my two 1864 cents

as.