Can this strategy win?

[FourNines]

I have an idea for a JOB strategy. Please tell me if you think it will work, and if possible, why it may not work...
 
With perfect play one should hit the 4-kind about every 423 hands on the average. What if you start at $1 for the first 150 hands, then up to $2 for the next 150 hands, and so on until you hit 4-kind. Then, of course, start over. This assumes $5 dollar max-bet. Wouldn't this "discount" the lower wager hands when you hit on something elevated. Making your winnning bets, on average, higher than your losing bets. I have simulated it on a simple program I wrote myself and it didn't work. But, on a session-by-session basis, shouldn't it work? Meaning, aren't you maximizing your 4-kinds to your advantage everytime you hit? Help me out here! Now I know you can go 1300 or more hands without a 4-kind, I've done it. But then you'd still hit on $5, discount those lower wager losses. I'm tempted to try it on WinPoker 6.0. But haven't yet.

[Eduardo]

As with any progressive betting system where you up your bets, the problem arises when you don't hit at the top level. Then if you go back to your starting amount, you need to win a lot of times to make up for that big loss. And you might play enough trying to make it up, that you lose again.

[FourNines]

Ahhh. But with this system, you play on till you do hit. Sometimes on the top level, but not going down till you do. Maybe the fault is when you're hot, you hit many 4-kinds on lower wagers, then you lose some when playing 800 or more hands without hitting. When you're hot, you are betting less?
Theoretically, it shouldn't work. And maybe theorectically it should. You gotta figure, if you bet more on your winning wagers than your losers, you will increase your percentage.

[faygo]

Ahhh. But with this system, you play on till you do hit. Sometimes on the top level, but not going down till you do. Maybe the fault is when you're hot, you hit many 4-kinds on lower wagers, then you lose some when playing 800 or more hands without hitting. When you're hot, you are betting less?
Theoretically, it shouldn't work. And maybe theorectically it should. You gotta figure, if you bet more on your winning wagers than your losers, you will increase your percentage.
 
Conversely you could wind up betting more on your losing wagers. Drats, I hate that when it happens.

[oej719]

?????? Not again.
Give it a shot 4 nines and let us know how you do in a casino after a couple months.

[EDC1977]

OEJ, perhaps easier to create a new username than to drag it out like piano dude, scorpio, and seaweed did. Strange how they all start out by asking an innocent question about a progressive betting system.

[oej719]

I was once told that if you were at the poker table and you were trying to figure out who the sucker was,
then it was you.
I know who the sucker is and it ain't me.
The bozo(rs) is always the sucker except in his own mind.

[shadowman]

Ahhh. But with this system, you play on till you do hit. Sometimes on the top level, but not going down till you do. Maybe the fault is when you're hot, you hit many 4-kinds on lower wagers, then you lose some when playing 800 or more hands without hitting. When you're hot, you are betting less?
Theoretically, it shouldn't work. And maybe theorectically it should. You gotta figure, if you bet more on your winning wagers than your losers, you will increase your percentage.


 
Here's the problem. At the point in time you decide to up your bet the odds of hitting a quad are no different than when you started at a lower denom. Sure, eventually you will hit a quad but you may lose more than it is worth even at the $5 level ... much more. Then, You could come back the next time and hit 5 quads at the $1 level but you are still behind. You might still average one quad every 423 hands.
 
This type of system only works if you can keep increasing your bet forever. This is known as a Martingale progressive system. Ever wonder why blackjack tables have maximum limits. For precisely this reason. Eventually you get up to the max and lose.
 
I could go on but I hope this explanation solves your dilemma.

[cddenver]

This type of system only works if you can keep increasing your bet forever. This is known as a Martingale progressive system. Ever wonder why blackjack tables have maximum limits. For precisely this reason. Eventually you get up to the max and lose.

 
Not being an expert on Martingale I've been reading up on it lately.  Besides the problem of maximum stakes, don't you  need an infinite bankroll as well?  In real play you'd have runs where you simply don't have the bankroll in a session to make another wager at a higher denom, or even at the same denom.
 

[Webman]

I'm thinking it might be a good thing to have a "primer" on progressive betting, with all the information in one thread. That way when people ask questions like this, they can be referred to that topic for the necessary information. It's not an uncommon thing for people to ask about. If anyone wants to create such a thread then I'll be happy to close these discussions in the future and refer people there, rather than having continual topics on the matter.