A new way to bet in blackjack

[blackjackwarrior]

Believe it or not, there is a correct way to bet in blackjack. Because of double downs, splits, and blackjacks, it pays to be aggressive with our betting. Only aggression entails risk, and when we, as players, take too much risk, it can lead to us busting.
How do we resolve this?
Bet the minimum – when we bet so little, we are taking little risk from our bankroll.
And with any loss, we re-bet the minimum.
And when we win, we double up our bet and continue to double up with each win. For you see, this increase does not come from our bankroll, but rather the dealer’s tray.
We’ve restricted it so that only minimum bets are made from our bankroll.
However, and this is why it pays to be aggressive, off of each small investment of the minimum, we have a chance to double down, split, or get blackjack after each win as the bets are doubled:
Possibly, from bet 1
To bet2
To bet4
To bet8
To bet16
To bet32
To bet64, which would most likely be the mathematical maximum in most casinos.
Plus, if we win past the mathematical maximum, we will have made a considerable profit, before we re-bet the minimum.
Simply put, we’re parlaying small bets of our bankroll for things better down the line.
The game of blackjack certainly allows for those possibilities, be they double downs, splits, blackjacks, or just winning through the mathematical maximum.
This is part of the P/L Betting System.

ADMIN: Horrible link removed

[blackjackwarrior]

Any opinions guys

[Dieter]

And with any loss, we re-bet the minimum.
And when we win, we double up our bet and continue to double up with each win.

If you bet all your winnings (doubling up after a win), you lose all your winnings whenever you end up losing.

You lose more than that if you lose on a double or split.

This makes this system more risky than flat betting.

If you don't have a way of correlating your wager with your advantage, flat betting is the most prudent system.

[blackjackwarrior]

But you see you just bet the minimum - it's low risk. You do need a sizable bankroll to play with this betting but as you double your bets, your opportunities for double downs, splits, and blackjacks as the amount of your bets go up is extended with every win. And although you may lose on the double downs and splits, you have a better chance of winning the double downs and splits.

[blackjackwarrior]

If you don't have a way of correlating your wager with your advantage, flat betting is the most prudent system.

I would disagree. This way of betting extends the chances of capturing double downs, splits, and blackjacks off a small bet. Flat betting ties you to the statistics.

[Rudy]

Omg... nothing personal but you really need to read more, otherwise, stop gambling and trollin.

[blackjackwarrior]

Okay, I will incorporate card counting into this betting. Because it relies on winning double downs, splits, and getting blackjack, if the count indicates that we should not double down, then we should preemptively reset the progression. That way we will collect our winnings and re-bet the minimum, to parlay for more opportunities.

[blackjackwarrior]

Omg... nothing personal but you really need to read more, otherwise, stop gambling and trollin.

I'm not trollin.

[Norm]

Utter, complete nonesense. Even too bad for the disadvantage forum.

[blackjackwarrior]

Utter, complete nonesense. Even too bad for the disadvantage forum.

May I ask you how? The premise is parlaying these small bets into things down the line.

[Norm]

Parlaying them into a huge loss. There is nothing to comment on. In no way have you shown how the odds in the game are changed. You are just betting more hoping for a winning streak. Seriously, you are describing the anti-martingale system, invented two centuries ago, and reinvented by someone in the world every day since. Over 50 years ago, as a child, I realized this wouldn't work.

[blackjackwarrior]

It takes the form of an anti-martingale. However, most people, if not all, does not account for the effect the double downs and blackjacks can have when playing with the anti-martingale. They start their bets too big or they don't provide themselves with a large enough bankroll and do not realize all the probabilities and simply bust. We want to extend the betting progression for as long as possible because of what can happen. Yes the anti-martingale in nearly all negative expected gambles are useless, but in blackjack, because of the double downs, blackjacks, and occasional splits (they being +ev), it's workable. The longer we extend the betting progression, the more chances we have of capturing one of the advantages within the betting progression and at a high stake: for off of a minimum bet, we have a chance to double down, split, or get blackjack after each win. I also contend that we can track the cards and determine if we as players wish to continue with the progression. If not, we would simply collect our winning and re-bet the minimum.

[Norm]

Utter, complete nonsense. What matters is the overall EV of the next hand. The fact that some of these hands allow doubling the bet is more than accounted for by the fact that you lose more hands than you win. The EV of each hand is negative, INCLUDING the fact that you can double, split or get a blackjack. At your max bet, you are still betting with negative EV. You are just as likely to double or get a blackjack at every level in the progression, and just as likely to lose also. Overall, you will lose.

I can't believe I bothered to type this.