Which of these is better?

Let's say you are playing blackjack, have $100 bankroll and the game has a $1 minimum.

If you bet it all on one decision, you'll end up with $200 about 50% of the time, and every 23 hands you'd get $250. The rest you will go broke.
If you bet $1 100 times, you'll most likely end up with your results being somewhere between $80 and $120. Your chances of ending up with more than $150 or less than $50 are pretty slim. Your risk of ruin is pretty close to zero.
Assuming the $100 BR is money you can afford to lose, is the first option your better choice?

I always go for longevity at the tables, but the tables don't feel any problem with putting me 50 bets down pretty quickly.

I think it would largely depend on the player. Do they want to stretch their gambling budget and play for a while? Then option B is pretty obvious. Are they feeling a one shot gamble to try to "double up or bust?" Then option A is pretty obvious. Either way you have $100 in action and at a generic .5% HE you're Expected Loss is the exact same.

Funny enough if you're not a regular gambler, and say you just do something like this once per year, then I'd say take the larger shot. Variance is your friend. If someone bet $100 1 time per year for 20 years, they have the same expected loss as someone who bets 100 $1 bets once per year, but after 20 years the first guy will have 20 wagers, the 2nd guy will have 2,000 wager. The closer you get to the long run, the more likely you are to be at EV (i.e. losing in this game).

Another idea: bet $50 first up. If you win, great. Use the other $50 for long term fun, and you walk away even after a lengthy flutter.

If you lose that first $50, you still got the other $50 for a decent length flutter.

__________


the paradox of gambling


a player goes into a casino with just $50 and no access to credit lines or more money from an ATM

he decides to play roulette

the player must have a huge edge - why?

he can only lose $50__________but there's no limit to how much he could win



of course, it's not true that he has an edge - he has a large disadvantage
but the wording_____________ "he can only lose $50_______________but there's no limit to how much he could win"



is not false, just misleading


.

Binion's in the old days had a great rule... put your maximum bet up as 1st bet. I might put 20 up front and play 5, 10, 20 according to count. Chances are with $100 roll, you'd have a few points comped. Something to consider in the equation...

For your ? I'd go $10 1st, then 2, 4, 6, 10 according to count.

Suited89

There are options between $1 and $100 per hand.
One of these options may be preferable, as basic strategy often calls for a split or double bet.

I believe the likelihood of winning a blackjack hand is less than 50%; 40% is probably closer. 50% is about right for losing hands, but you don't get paid on all the not-losses.

I'd look at $20 or $25.

The odds of winning your next hand are about 42%, but that doesn't men you lose 58% of them. When you factor out ties, you'll win close to 48% of them and about 4 1/2%
of them are blackjacks. You get your money back on a push so if you play 100 hands, you would win about 42 which would pay 84, and expect 4 BJs for two extra units.
You'd get around nine ties which return your bet so you'd have 95 chips left if you start with 100 and made all100 $1 bets. That assumes no doubles and no splits. That would be a 5% house edge. Normal splits and doubles would lower the HA.