I dont bet online, but will eventually. Prolly at a site where the minimum is 1$. For the sake of argument we will say that the Max bet is 500$.

So here is a theory I have been thinking about where you "cant lose". (in quotes because obviously you can)

We'll say the book takes 10% from each bet

I bet $1 on a game. Lose
NOw i will double it to $2. lose,
Now i double to $4 (note im betting an extra $1 if i would wanna break eaven, Id bet $3, but im trying to get +EV). Lose again
Now I bet (1+2+4+ extra amount that Id like to win) etc..

By this strategy I am bound to hit. Are there any flaws with this? Also I would I incorperate the 10% the house gets into my equation to be EV+?

__________________
I get more ass than a toilet seat. All shapes/colors/sizes.

caution:
http://girlvideos.blogspot.com/

The flaw is that there is a bet limit. Even if the bookmakers don't take any cut and you use this strategy.

Say the maximum bet is $512

You bet $1 first, then $2 if you lose etc. This in theory would gurantee you make a $1 profit when you win.

However, If you lose 10 bets in a row, you are then unable to place enough money on a bet to earn your dollar plus lost stake (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512).

If you run this strategy 512 times:

511 times you make a $1 profit and keep your stake.

1 time you lose the $512

Expectiaion = 0
If the bookie takes even a small % your expectation will become -ve.

That is unless you have a good selection of games to bet on, in which case you should have +ve expectation without using a system.

Bonch put together a good thread on this about 6 months ago, can't find the link. It's called the Gmablers Fallacy, and you need infinite time and infinite bank to make your initial bet + 1. Better places to invest that type of money

__________________

im no big sports betting fan or expert but i remember a few years ago a friend of mine was betting on the first goalscorer in english soccer games.

at the start of the season he picked three players and stuck with them for each game of the season

each week he picked three players and bet €20 on each to be the first scorer in the games they were playing

if they scored first, happy days......if they didnt, then the next week he doubled the stake on that player and kept doubling each week until he did score first

one of the players was going through a terrible spell so he had to split the bet out between different bookies so he would get paid if he did score first cos the winnings would have been over the max payout to one customer (this was a bookies shop, not online bookie)

over the course of the season, he was up approx €3k from this weekly routine.......of course, i meant to do the same thing the next season but i kept forgetting to place the bets so i gave up on it

id imagine that the same would apply online.....to avoid hitting the max bet/payout, split between different bookies (but as i said, im no expert)

This is known as negative progression, people try it with blackjack as well, its just a bad idea, dont go anywhere near it.

__________________
A good education is expensive but ignorance costs more.

This is known as martingale betting. The problem is no matter how much you increase your bet, it is still -ev. Now add in that the house takes a cut in sports betting and you can lose a lot of money quickly with this. Search in general discussion for some better posts on this.

Sports betting is quite beatable, but only through good research and sound bets. If this strategy worked, why isn't everyone playing BJ like this?

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

what cut does the house take? betting tax? plenty of tax free betting sites out there

this strategy WILL work on certain types of sports betting (im not even going near BJ)....my first goalscorer story above is one example....i havent a clue about this +/- points carry on that some of u guys do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the house always take a small cut on each bet?

This strategy will not work on sports betting: I have done the math and posted it. This idea has been around 100's of years, and you aren't the first to be mistaken about it. Google will provide you with some links that can explain it quite simply.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

i'll take great pleasure in correcting you

all of the bookies over here DO NOT take any kind of cut......the only cut they used to take was the betting tax(govt cut) and thats now wiped out here and any internet bookies ive ever used have never charged betting tax cos they're based in gibraltar or isle of man.....apart from tax, i cant think of any cut they would take.....rake?

im glad im not the first to get it wrong

im still sticking with my notion that u will not lose money using this system betting on events that WILL happen......thierry henry or van nistlerooy or any other prolific goalscorer WILL score first in a lot of games they play this season......the eagles winning by 6 points or more (or whatever these kinda bets are) may not happen at all over the course of the season

the most you can win is the original bet minus vig.

takes big bank for little gain.