BLACKJACK -- PROGRESSIVE BETTING

Does anyone use a progressive (or a negative strategy)?

My cousin uses this system and has had some good luck and bad also. A progressive system increases your wins when you do good, but runs through your bankroll faster when you lose.

In other words - it doesn't work!
It is getting much harder to gain a blackjack edge. Too many 6-5 games. Counting is getting harder. . . Matchplays still work!

I'd strongly advise you against any progressive strategy (Martingale and its cousins, or any progressive or "money management" system that anyone is publicizing or selling). Those strategies work for a little while, you usually have a bunch of sessions with a small win, but eventually the numbers will catch up with you and you'll have a massive losing session. When you add everything up, you'll find that your losses (or wins, if you're an advantage BJ player) will add up to the same as if you were just flat betting (or whatever).

I have plenty of friends who try to convince me about their great results, often feeling that they're the only person in the history of gambling who has "discovered" this flaw in the casinos. Typically, you'll have maybe 10 or 20 days when you cash out $15 or $20 ahead, then one horrible session when nothing goes right and you cash out down $400 or so. What happens is that the system tells you to keep increasing bets, until you bump up against the table maximum. Ask yourself this, too: Do you really want to bet $512 to try to win $5?

Bottom line: you can't add up a bunch of negative numbers and get a positive number. Better to select good games and to learn basic strategy and maybe some advanced blackjack techniques.

Perfect post, jstewa22.

The general progressive betting plan you are suggesting is known as Martingale, and is well known and documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

On the other hand....several years ago i read a book about "progressive" blackjack betting. The author instructed players to bet more after wins (basically the opposite of martingale), and flat bets after losses. It never made much sense to me to have your biggest bet on the table when you lose, but essentially he was promoting "betting trends" over math, like John Patrick, et. al.

Lots of money to be made in publishing systems...

I do best when I play 2 spaces. Of course you have to double your bet, so I look for a $5 or $10 table.

There is a great old book out there, Mike Goodman's "Your Best Bet". Some great gambling stories interspaced with solid info on how the games are played and somewhat dubious information on betting. He has a progressive system for BJ. It assumes a standard bet, lets say $5. You bet 5, if you win you bet 10, if you win you bet 15, if you win you bet 25, if you win bet 25 again and so on. Any loss and you go back to 5 and start again. The idea was you profit by hot streaks and minimize losses otherwhise. Many years ago a math savy person here did an analysis and bottom line is over the long term you lose the same amount as if you just flat bet 5. I suppose it might help by looking like you bet more for rating but like any other system it does not beat the math long term.