CruiseDk,
<<<What i am saying is you are better off with progressive betting than just sitting playing the same flat bet all evening. >>>
Why do you say that CruiseDk? According to the mathematics behind the probabilities of Blackjack, you are exactly the SAME by progressive betting versus flat betting, assuming you are playing perfect Basic Strategy and are not wagering based upon some additional information about the deck (ie, counting or knowing what the dealer's hole card is or better yet, knowing what YOUR next hand will end up being.)
The expected loss is the same as determined by the house edge in that game you are playing whether you are flat betting or betting progressively. That house edge, applied to the total amount you have bet during the session will give you the expected return. You may win more and may even win more most of the time if you are lucky, but since you are betting more, you are eventually going to lose more also. It all evens out if you play long enough.
But, while I'll stick now with recreational play and primarily flat bet unless I accumulate knowledge that indicates a favorable situation for me, I wish you continued favorable variance (GOOD LUCK) in the application of your progression system.
The "$20,000) challenge listed below has been removed because there were no takers other than one person who thought his system unbeatable. He threw in the towel after something on the order of 1,000,000 hands of simulated play and forfeited his $2,000 wager.
Take a look at
http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/challenge3.html or go to
http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/betting-systems.html and read comments from one of the recognized "best in the business" (
Michael Shackleford) on odds determination. While you are there, read the credentials of Shackleford (About the Wizard) just so you know he is no crackpot.
With all of that said concerning my opinions of "progressive betting strategies" I will add something I think constructive rather than just downplay the notion of betting on streaks.
If you are not inclined to develop skills as a card counter, you might take a shortcut that is not all that dependable yet, one that can give you a little bit of an advantage.
Try to find a table that is pretty much "full" and that is also dealt "face up." With a full table, you can see more cards in play at one time than when playing at a table with only one or two players.
"Watch" the cards in play. If you see a round dealt that consists of nearly all low cards (2-6=low, 10-Ace=high), then you have a little bit of knowledge to suggest that the deck might be rich in high cards, assuming that you have not seen a prior hand consisting of predominately high cards. This is advantagous to the player so double your bet. Consequently, if you see high cards fall, drop back to your minimum. I'm not talking about hands where there are only 2 or 3 more low cards than high (or the other way around). I'm talking about somthing like a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio one way or the other.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a betting strategy. It is also a very crude and unreliable method of "card counting." It will not work as well as knowing the actual ratio of high cards to low cards in the remaining deck, however, if you are going to be changing your betting amounts anyway, it is better than basing it on whether or not you won or lost the previous hand.
I will note that I have used this and found it much more effective with Double Deck than with 6-deck shoe games. I also note that I've lost using this method. Unlike true counting, this method does not consider the hands dealt in which the high cards that have fallen only slightly outnumber the low ones that have fallen.
However, if you simply cannot bring yourself to flat bet and absolutely must vary your bets, it is somewhat more sensible to base that decision on incomplete (and sometimes completely inaccurate!) information than on no information at all.
