Hi All,

I'd like to preface this by saying I know that this is a voodoo-related discussion and that's why I've posted it in the voodoo forum.
I am not advocating this type of play ahah, It's just an interesting question.

The question is:
------------------
Playing a blackjack game with a normal house edge (~0.5% in the casino's favor), which player is more likely to be positive after 8 hours of play:

A ploppy flat-betting table minimum (ploppy 1)

or

A ploppy spreading his bets 1 - 10 according to his "gut". (ploppy 2)

Both ploppies play good-to-perfect basic strategy, and have large enough bankrolls to not go broke.
Neither of them are counting.
-------------------

The reason I think it's an interesting question is because obviously ploppy 1 will lose less money on average, but ploppy 2 at least has one of the factors require to beat the game.
Ploppy 1 has none of the factors required to beat the game.

Beating the game requires counting (knowing when to spread), and actually spreading your bet. Playing variations help too yes I know I know.
So, it is possible that sometimes Ploppy 2 might happen to be spreading his bet with the count, just by luck, and come out ahead occasionally.

I believe there is no doubt that ploppy 2 will lose more money on average, but I wonder if ploppy 2 would also come out positive more often.

Let me know what you think, and explain your rationale!

- Equanimity