Logical?
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.