mechanically alternating bets...

[banjo]

Has anyone tried a betting strat where one might place alternating bets of 1 then 2 units or 1 then 3 units without regard to wins or loses changing the bet level? I have treid this strat in home practice. It seems to work with basic strat play, without a logical reason ofcourse. Any input?

[BlackDog]

Originally Posted by banjo

Has anyone tried a betting strat where one might place alternating bets of 1 then 2 units or 1 then 3 units without regard to wins or loses changing the bet level? I have treid this strat in home practice. It seems to work with basic strat play, without a logical reason ofcourse. Any input?

Any betting strategy will work...for a limited time...
Unfortunately over the long haul you will lose. You have to remember that the house has the advantage to start out. So, you are already behind. If you do not know when the wins and loses are "most likely" going to happen you are leaving it to nothing more than luck. Which is fine if you are ok with that.

I don't mean to sound so negative but I have done almost nothing this year except research this game. Betting strategies was the first plan to fall by the wayside.

(Which reminds me...shouldn't this be in the betting strategies forum? Man that makes me sound like such a jerk)

[banjo]

Thanks for the input....Re forum: my first post....Re jerk:

[Mikeaber]

Hmmm, let me point out one thing that might make what you are proposing something that "might" have a little "somewhat faulty" logic behind it Banjo.

Your odds in Blackjack against the house are very close to even on any given hand (48% vs 52%). Almost a coin toss. Now, that means that you are probably going to loose just a few more hands than you win if variance doesn't jump in and skew things.

With that said, it seems that over time, you are likely to hit streaks where you win one and loose one. In that case, if you are "in sync" with the deck, you will have the higher bet out when you are winning <LOL>. I laugh because that cycle is not dependable and two wins or two losses in succession would change the cycle yet your betting wouldn't change.

But I have noticed that there are more hands split when betting two spots on the table than there are where you win both or loose both. Two spots is something like "insurance" if you are flat betting. In two out of three scenarios, it is good and in one it is bad. It is good if you either push the two hands or win both. It's bad if you loose both.

Bottom line is that you are gambling and though there is in reality no rhyme or reason other than what I stated, you are as likely to loose big as you are to win big.

[BlackjackRebel]

Alternating your bet just for the hell of it will increase your volatility for sure. It is a tactic probably best done with a horseshoe in your pocket. If the luck is running your way, you can win a lot but there is no reason for your success other than having a lucky streak with larger bets out. (unless the force is with you)
Unfortunately, that increased variance can also cause you to see your bankroll disappear at a prodigious rate if the dark side is in control

[SystemsTrader]

Banjo you should never raise your bet unless you know you have an edge against the house. Cover play would be an exception here. No money management strategy in the world works against a negative expectancy game over the long run. The only way to know when you have an edge is through card counting.