Compounding bets

Maybe this question is dead as I write this, but I have no clue. So, everyone has heard of the doubling a penny for 30 days thing, right? If not, it basically says that if someone gives you a penny on day 1, two pennies on day 2, four pennies on day 3, and they keep doubling what you have everyday for 30 days, on day 30 it will amount to over a million dollars. I'm taking that concept and applying it to sports betting.

Situation: Let's leave juice or vig out of the equation. And it's assumed that I have $100 bankroll to support a 100 game losing streak if it happened. If you had 100 football games, and you bet $1 on the first game... If you win, you take the winnings ($1) plus the original bet ($1) and bet $2 on the second game. Win again, take the $4 and bet the 3rd game. If you lose, you start back at $1.

PreQuestion: Is there any calculated advantages to stopping after a streak of, for example, five wins in a row, and pocketing the winnings and starting back at $1? (I do understand that if you don't stop at all you will eventually lose)

THE MAIN QUESTION: Are the odds the same if you try to hit smaller streaks and pocket cash along the way or use up all 100 games to try and win a bigger sum of money at once and trying to hit a bigger streak? What's the math that supports it? How do these affect the value of ROI?

Thanks guys!

I think you've discovered a completely new betting system.

I think I will call it "Paroli".

Gamblers have been looking for winning progressive systems for hundreds of years. And they've never found even one. The math can get very, very, complicated but trust respected mathematicians when they inform you that no staking system can overcome a house edge or vigorish or benefit a gambler in any way (except possibly by allowing him to play for a longer period of time in order to earn greater comps.) Gamblers look for these systems because naturally, being gamblers they are looking for easy money - an easy way to beat a game. It's possible to beat some gambling games but it's not easy, it's hard. It requires learning a great deal to be a winning handicapper or poker player or blackjack player. It's called playing but it's really not playing - it's working.

Before getting defensive about the question, perhaps you could understand why someone may want to know. I was unaware of the Paroli system and for me, this is the perfect way to manage my bankroll and increase earnings when sports betting. Not to try and win more often.

Quote: Chodempole

Let's leave juice or vig out of the equation.

That's a 'system' I could like.

Quote: Chodempole

Before getting defensive about the question, perhaps you could understand why someone may want to know. I was unaware of the Paroli system and for me, this is the perfect way to manage my bankroll and increase earnings when sports betting. Not to try and win more often.

You say "increase earnings." I'm taking this to mean that without out doing that you have earnings but you would like for them to be greater. If this is true then the best way to do this would be to increase the size of your flat bets while making sure your bankroll is large enough to withstand losing streaks. Some pros will bet larger amounts when they feel stronger about a particular game or perceive a greater edge. This type of wagering is related to a method known as the "kelly criterion."

Agreed. The title of the thread is "compounding bets." So I wanted to know the math behind the Paroli system, which I never knew existed.. For a reason.

Here's the realities:
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
All systems work pretty well when you win.
All systems are lousy when you lose.

The house takes a cut either way.