A new way to bet in blackjack

[Three]

Some splits are offensive (increase your winning expectation) and some are defensive (decrease your losing expectation). You parlay into a defensive split and you have done yourself no favor. Doubles are sensitive to the count. Making them willy nilly after parlays is a recipe for disaster. Ina high count you will have great opportunity doubling many hands you might not and getting better results on your doubles. In a poor count basic strategy doubles may be risking double to decrease your expectation. Another recipe for a parlay disaster. You will get longer streaks in a poor count, both winning and losing streaks. High counts tend to have short streaks because the dealer gets good cards as well. The difference is you get a bonus on the more frequent BJs and can choose to vary your plays due to the high count. The dealer must play the same regardless of the count.

Besides the math of your idea being totally against you, the nature of the runs in the game will have you betting your highest bets most often in poor situations. This will further hurt your outcome than the math shows. The math says if you bets are made independent of advantage you expect to lose your total of all your bets times the house edge. Obviously the best strategy is not to play and you expect to lose nothing. The next best option is to flat bet the minimum. Of course if there was a way to know how the advantage shifts as the cards are dealt...

[Three]

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.

To take into account the doubles and splits for the anti-martingale you must not parlay a win. The idea of an anti-martingale is you only risk your original wager and may win much more if you have a run of x wins. So you are trying to win 5 in a row. You start at $10 and progress to 20, 40, 80 and finally 160 in hopes of risking $10 and winning $310 after a run of 5 wins. You get to that 5th bet and split to 4 hands with doubles on each hand and the dealer hits out to 21. You lose all your bets and are down $1130 on one progression instead of $10. That defeats the entire purpose of an anti martingale. If you don't double or split as strategy demands the house edge is huge because it assumes you will follow the optimum strategy. If you do double and split in a progression it destroys the organization of wins and losses i that gives you a higher likelihood of winning in the short run but has a higher losing expectation in the long run which is the entire purpose of a progression into a higher losing expectation and quite randomly organized flow of wins and losses..

[blackjackwarrior]

The EV of the hand is negative, but you've set it up to where it can be overcome. You're bet is at an amount (because of the doubling up after each win) that you're better off just to catch a double down.

You are just as likely to double or get a blackjack at every level in the progression, and just as likely to lose also

. That's not true. The game is an overall negative EV, but ev can fluctuate after the hands are dealt - most double downs and nearly all blackjacks are positive EV save the dealer has blackjack too. Is that not the main thrust of card counting - forecasting favorability.

[Three]

That's not true. The game is an overall negative EV, but ev can fluctuate after the hands are dealt - most double downs and nearly all blackjacks are positive EV save the dealer has blackjack too. Is that not the main thrust of card counting - forecasting favorability.

Your are not thinking clearly. Proper doubles and splits are already figured into the negative EV. Making them is not going to increase EV. Not making them will decrease EV.

[Norm]

YES, that's the main thrust of card counting. But, you aren't card counting. You are betting more for no sane reason. Why on Earth you think the odds magically turn in your favor because you are betting more is beyond me.

[blackjackwarrior]

The idea of an anti-martingale is you only risk your original wager and may win much more if you have a run of x wins. So you are trying to win 5 in a row. You start at $10 and progress to 20, 40, 80 and finally 160 in hopes of risking $10 and winning $310 after a run of 5 wins. You get to that 5th bet and split to 4 hands with doubles on each hand and the dealer hits out to 21. You lose all your bets and are down $1130 on one progression instead of $10. That defeats the entire purpose of an anti martingale. If you don't double or split as strategy demands the house edge is huge because it assumes you will follow the optimum strategy. If you do double and split in a progression it destroys the organization of wins and losses i that gives you a higher likelihood of winning in the short run but has a higher losing expectation in the long run which is the entire purpose of a progression into a higher losing expectation and quite randomly organized flow of wins and losses..

That the point. You look at bets and you calculate that as a win or loss - you forgot the possibilities. With your example given of the four splits and double downs after, yes you can lose, but what are the probabilities. You're more likely to win, and four splits and four double downs - I take that any day. It's only after one lose when one factor it as a bad play.

[Norm]

But you are just as likely to lose with a big bet as a small bet. You'll just lose more on average.

[blackjackwarrior]

YES, that's the main thrust of card counting. But, you aren't card counting. You are betting more for no sane reason. Why on Earth you think the odds magically turn in your favor because you are betting more is beyond me.

It fell in your lap. You set it up so that can happen. To bet more with each hand is an advantage. If you bet small and continue to bet larger, the double downs and blackjacks allows for capitalization. What if we were flipping a fair coin flip. Now this fair coin flip gives you an advantage - you get to roll a ten-side dice. If you land on one, you get to roll once more. This time, if you roll one thru six you win double. If you land on the other numbers you lose double. You'll find that you potentially make more with a progressive betting progression.

[Norm]

The EV of a hand already includes doubles. Why do you think that the EV changes because you bet more? You will still have the exact same number of doubles. The EV will still be minus.

[blackjackwarrior]

But you are just as likely to lose with a big bet as a small bet. You'll just lose more on average.

If you catch a double down, that bet will be magnified. You'll notice that betting like this, your bet average goes up in comparison to flat betting. On average, you will double down on a higher bet. So long as you win you fair share of double downs, meaning what you're suppose to, you come ahead of flat betting.

[blackjackwarrior]

Your are not thinking clearly. Proper doubles and splits are already figured into the negative EV. Making them is not going to increase EV. Not making them will decrease EV.

Yes it does. 6 - 5 vs the dealer's 6 is a positive ev. A double down there is mightily desirous and makes it all the better.

[Norm]

And on average, you wil bet higher on a losing bet. This is getting tiresome. Your EV includes doubling, splitting and blackjacks. It is negative. If you double your bet, the bet wlil be higher but the EV will be the same. You will simply lose more. Yes, you will win more on doubles. But, you will also lose more on losing hands, which outnumber winning hands. If you bet twice as much, you will lose twice as much. If you bet ten tmies as much, you will lose ten times as much.

[blackjackwarrior]

The EV of a hand already includes doubles.

Yes at a flat bet. The double downs allows us to put more money in and at a higher stake, the double downs will have a bigger impact.