Today: First, I'd like to thank everyone for your advice and honest assessments when I posted this a few days ago. This was my first attempt at Pokemon Go research and there was a lot of support for the theory. I tested this today and my findings are below:
After testing this theory today on 3 Lugia raid bosses, my findings DID show a fall off in the number of attacks in subsequent throws following a Nanab, so this theory may hold water, HOWEVER, the fall off appeared to be INSIGNIFICANT and could still have been RNG as the sample size was still lower than a more thorough test should probably have. I am not a statistician, but my results are found below and should someone like, they can crunch the raw data.The tests were conducted as follows:
1.) Upon completion of the raid, I counted the number of attacks for 5 Minutes without doing anything. My results were 34, 32, and 38 attacks respectively for each of the 3 Lugia raid bosses. All were the same level due to them being raid bosses and thus should have the same difficulty in regard to capture rate.
2.) Feed Nanab, count attacks for 5 minutes, followed by an unsuccessful capture attempt (throw ball that hits but with low chance of success- I threw a straight throw with no bonus for each; each of the 3 raid boss was not captured on these attempts) : my results were 2, 4, and 3 attacks respectively. Nanab acted as intended during the 5 minute period.
3.) Count attacks for 5 Minutes with no berry modifier. My results were 27, 23, 31. While each of the results was lower than they were for the first 5 minutes before a Nanab, they were considerably closer to those totals than during the trial with nanab. The other thing I find interesting is here is that the findings were similarly proportional to the original number of attacks from step 1. The first Lugia attacked approximately 21% less than they did before the nanab (27 compared to 34). The second Lugia attacked approximately 29% less than they did before the nanab (23 compared to 32). The third Lugia attacked approximately 19% less than they did before the nanab (31 compared to 38).
These tests have shown so far that nanabs DO appear to have a somewhat lasting effect beyond the turn it was used (a Nanab hangover, if you will), but the tradeoff of sacrificing an opportunity to use a golden razz on the first throw is probably not worth it given only a 20%-30% dropped in subsequent attacks. More testing is needed.
Original post from Friday July 28th
I always start legendary raids with a nanab. Hear me out! I'll attempt to pepper in humor, but if you must, TL;DR at the bottom.
This is a theory others have alluded to, but has not been tested. I can't confirm this as I have not done adequate research nor do I have a large enough sample size, but someone else who has had success in legendary raids (who is not Mystic7-"Savage Season" sounds like something from Jersey Shore and will not be uttered by me ever) suggested this to me on my first attempt. I am now 3 for 4 on Lugia and 2 for 3 on Articuno. My untested theory is that nanabs appear to have a lasting effect where the other berries obviously do not. Once the berry image disappears after the throw in which it was used, the pokemon still acts like a lethargic drunk on morphine. I can then use golden razz for subsequent throws while also appearing to have the effects of a nanab.
Nanab's effect may only work for a limited amount of time or throws, but I am nearly positive it works longer than 1 throw. I've watched others try to catch without this and their legendary boss moves significantly more than mine on subsequent throws after a nanab. Because of this, I almost never miss a throw (maybe 1 per boss). It should be noted that I curveball 100% of the time and get a great throw bonus at least 75% of the time.
Obviously, my capture rate percentage of success is lower on that first throw than those who exclusively use golden razz, but most people I've seen often miss A LOT either out of impatience for the right opportunity or just throwing into an animation. This method significantly reduces the animations and obviously, any successful hit carries higher odds than a wasted ball on a missed throw. If you're the God of excellence and throw a curve like Clayton Kershaw, maybe this would lower your odds, but for mere mortals like me, I believe it helps. My success seems to be well above average, so either I've been truly lucky or there is something to this.
Unverified theory. Nanab appears to have a lasting effect. I nanab first throw to reduce animations which increases the likelihood that I hit on subsequent throws. Golden razz each throw afterwards. Capture chance on any hit>Capture chance on any missed throw.
UPDATE: While I certainly appreciate everyone's enthusiasm to this point in regard to this theory I DO NOT want anyone to ACCEPT THIS AS FACT just yet. Multiple people have thanked me for enabling their first legendary catch(es) and while I am humbled, there are still many trials to be done before this theory should be accepted as gospel. I was reluctant to post today given my small sample size, but there was so much input and excitement shown on the original post on Friday that I felt it necessary to at least provide my preliminary findings. I am more than happy to accept data from anyone here who would like to assist in providing their data as well. At this time, I do not have a control group. It is quite possible that raid bosses experience "fatigue" and launch fewer attacks over the duration of the capture window. This could be influenced by minutes, balls thrown, or possibly even "ball breakouts". My point is that A LOT more data needs to be amassed before I am confident in saying this theory is true. Please do not catch a legendary and blindly attribute it to using a Nanab as this could all still very likely be a placebo effect (ie: you might have caught it without using a Nanab). Thank you again for all of the support and especially thank you to all of you providing input on how these tests should be carried out to ensure significant data is collected. Let's tap the brakes though.