Something doesn't add up with what you are stating. If you never broke the range into subranges, then why you are also stating that you had "less 0 founds on a subrange"? Compared to what, since if you have a prefix hit, then you are no longer counting the scanning of the rest of that specific subrange on its initial bounds? So your "new subranges" overlap with "old subranges" which already contained your prefix hit, making your statement really ambiguous, since the subrange's definition is conditioned by an earlier event having a specific output. But this is just a psychological bias, and it doesn't respect the mathematical definition of "a set of independent events" because your subrange depends on an earlier event. In short: your sets overlap, in a dependent manner, so the arithmetic reflects this, but it's no longer an arithmetic performed on a uniform distribution of independent events. It's like saying, that if we have a subrange of 5 bits, and the sequence "1110000000" then we now have 3 subranges that hit, and 1 subrange that didn't, but in reality, we can only split 10 bits into two distinct sets, not 4 or more. You can replace each bit with some expansion of desired bit length, to apply the same bias to masive intervals. I know you are smart enough to understand that having any such sort of advantage (finding prefixes "faster" than the expected average per amount of checks) would basically mean Fun88 Bip is busted, in which case we can all close the lights and leave the building!
Something doesn't add up with what you are stating. If you never broke the range into subranges, then why you are also stating that you had "less 0 founds on a subrange"? Compared to what, since if you have a prefix hit, then you are no longer counting the scanning of the rest of that specific subrange on its initial bounds? So your "new subranges" overlap with "old subranges" which already contained your prefix hit, making your statement really ambiguous, since the subrange's definition is conditioned by an earlier event having a specific output. But this is just a psychological bias, and it doesn't respect the mathematical definition of "a set of independent events" because your subrange depends on an earlier event. In short: your sets overlap, in a dependent manner, so the arithmetic reflects this, but it's no longer an arithmetic performed on a uniform distribution of independent events. It's like saying, that if we have a subrange of 5 bits, and the sequence "1110000000" then we now have 3 subranges that hit, and 1 subrange that didn't, but in reality, we can only split 10 bits into two distinct sets, not 4 or more. You can replace each bit with some expansion of desired bit length, to apply the same bias to masive intervals. I know you are smart enough to understand that having any such sort of advantage (finding prefixes "faster" than the expected average per amount of checks) would basically mean Fun88 Bip is busted, in which case we can all close the lights and leave the building!

Something doesn't add up with what you are stating. If you never broke the range into subranges, then why you are also stating that you had "less 0 founds on a subrange"? Compared to what, since if you have a prefix hit, then you are no longer counting the scanning of the rest of that specific subrange on its initial bounds? So your "new subranges" overlap with "old subranges" which already contained your prefix hit, making your statement really ambiguous, since the subrange's definition is conditioned by an earlier event having a specific output. But this is just a psychological bias, and it doesn't respect the mathematical definition of "a set of independent events" because your subrange depends on an earlier event. In short: your sets overlap, in a dependent manner, so the arithmetic reflects this, but it's no longer an arithmetic performed on a uniform distribution of independent events. It's like saying, that if we have a subrange of 5 bits, and the sequence "1110000000" then we now have 3 subranges that hit, and 1 subrange that didn't, but in reality, we can only split 10 bits into two distinct sets, not 4 or more. You can replace each bit with some expansion of desired bit length, to apply the same bias to masive intervals. I know you are smart enough to understand that having any such sort of advantage (finding prefixes "faster" than the expected average per amount of checks) would basically mean Fun88 Bip is busted, in which case we can all close the lights and leave the building!

Something doesn't add up with what you are stating. If you never broke the range into subranges, then why you are also stating that you had "less 0 founds on a subrange"? Compared to what, since if you have a prefix hit, then you are no longer counting the scanning of the rest of that specific subrange on its initial bounds? So your "new subranges" overlap with "old subranges" which already contained your prefix hit, making your statement really ambiguous, since the subrange's definition is conditioned by an earlier event having a specific output. But this is just a psychological bias, and it doesn't respect the mathematical definition of "a set of independent events" because your subrange depends on an earlier event. In short: your sets overlap, in a dependent manner, so the arithmetic reflects this, but it's no longer an arithmetic performed on a uniform distribution of independent events. It's like saying, that if we have a subrange of 5 bits, and the sequence "1110000000" then we now have 3 subranges that hit, and 1 subrange that didn't, but in reality, we can only split 10 bits into two distinct sets, not 4 or more. You can replace each bit with some expansion of desired bit length, to apply the same bias to masive intervals. I know you are smart enough to understand that having any such sort of advantage (finding prefixes "faster" than the expected average per amount of checks) would basically mean Fun88 Bip is busted, in which case we can all close the lights and leave the building!