Nyne and bigplayer,

i agree, 100%, you know, sorta. i think a guy could easily lose the 750$ 40 times before EVER getting the 30,000$. further agree he could easily diminish wins that might have been, say, 20 flat bets up, to less than 20, by increasing his bets and losing. what is interesting about this, however, is that by not simply "flat betting the very long run", he is establishing "opportunities" in which, by sheer luck, he may experience a very substantial outlier gain. he was not ONLY the beneficiary of a good-luck run of variance, he was ALSO beneficiary of what you and i know to be an idiot willingness to greatly increase his bet because he constructed what you and i know was mere illusion--something to the effect of the false idea he was "playing with house money." (we all know it was HIS hard-earned, risked money).

now, should he play the same game and bet up when he is LOSING, it shouldnt take very long for him to be breaking even, minus the house advantage. BUT, when he refuses to bet up when losing, he creates the opportunity that he well MIGHT get outlier winners that require very little "lucky variance" to net him gains and it is not a slam dunk that he will, along the way, pay in losses what he gets in gains.

one "certain" advantage to such an approach is it does keep this guy betting modestly when losing--he is "defending zero" quite well and, at worst, will be hard to kill as he "deludes"? himself into believing his betting up is "creating opportunities" as i am trying to sell but you may not be buying. you and i both know that if you take out the hocus pocus, his whole experience was really only one of a string of bets with an average bet-size and house advantage BUT, the hocus pocus, self-delusion away from that thought has this 25$ better, betting FAR MORE THAN IS PRUDENT and he is doing it while living "close enough" to even and "with house money", such that, eventually, probably not very far from even, he will probably get his outlier win (the 30,000$ was chosen for an absurd example that could happen and would, if managed well, surely last a 25$ guy a long time---think of more modest but impressive outlier wins to make the proposition more realistic). i DO get why this has a voodoo sound to it. maybe i can sell THIS notion: playing this way, a guy might hit his outlier win faster than he accumulates equal losses (has to do with the nature of ebb and flow of blackjack that is, of course, ultimately just math). should he hit his outlier early, the clock resets to zero and he again faces the NEW prospect of hoping his decent prospects of more outlier than loss will again happen----remember, this guy is playing in a way that makes him pretty hard to kill and pretty close to even as he keeps raising bets outrageously but "safely", hoping his outlier ship will come in.