Deathangl13

"Progressive betting cannot overcome the house edge. If the house has a 1% edge, it doesn't matter if you bet $1,$2,$4,$8,$16,or $1000000000000000000, they will take 1% of that bet in the long run." Found this quote and wondered... If that is true, than it has to be true for a counter using a bet spread. Think about it. A basic strategy player has the "advantage" at the same time as the counter in a given shoe, even if he's unaware. But say he's raising his bets at different intervals, maybe as a progressive player, he could be at any part of his bet spread when that advantage comes. If he's betting big at the right moment, he's got the advantage AND has a big bet out there. He might catch a blackjack, etc... If he's betting small when the advantage comes, he probably doesn't really lose anymore than the counter that has a big bet out and loses, which seems to be the norm these days. How many times have you run into a high count and lost 2 out of 3 big bets before it went south. Then right when you lower your bet to the minimum bet, bang... a blackjack.... Happens every night, many times over.... The advantage doesn't come from counting, it comes from the card composition on the table for a given hand and the composition of the remaining cards in the shoe. And if a progressive bettor can't overcome the house edge, than neither can a counter. They are essentially doing the same thing, it's just that one of them has foreknowledge of that composition. Either way though, the counter can lose big bets during the high count, and the progressive bettor can win big bets during a low count, just as the counter can win low bets during a low count and the progressive bettor can lose big bets during a high count. The truth is... we are gambling. We are progressively betting, like it or not. If that is not true, than a counter should have the advantage while flat betting....