The canonical hot hand fallacy result was recently reversed, based largely on a single statistic, and a data set that was underpowered for individual-level testing. Here we perform a more robust analysis, testing whether hot hand performance exists across (i) data sets: four different controlled shooting experiments, (ii) time: multiple sessions per individual spread across a six month gap, and (iii) various (improved) approaches to statistical testing. We find strong evidence of hot hand performance, both across data sets and within individuals across time. Moreover, in a study of beliefs, we find that expert observers can successfully predict which shooters get the hottest.