I'm not saying that one should recoup losses by moving up in stakes. But something I learned from my father in law got me thinking...
He was telling me about a system that can beat roulette long term. Supposedly (and I hope I haven't misunderstood it)...
1) You play a colour, that's it.
2) You lay $1 on, say, red
3) If you hit, you pocket the profit, go back to step 2
4) If you miss, you double and lay $2 on the same colour (red)
5) If you hit, you pocket the profit, go back to step 2
6) If you miss, you double and lay $4 on the same colour etc etc
Apparently, if a casino sniffs this out you will get booted. And I've been told online casinos sniff this out too.
So... In relation to the accepted theory that moving up in stakes to recoup losses is a bad idea, this way of beating roulette REQUIRES you to move up after a loss in order to make a profit long term. In a way, it seems like a counterexample to the accepted poker wisdom of moving DOWN when you lose.
If we were to use roulette as an example of moving DOWN to recoup a loss, everytime you lose the $1 on step 2, you are trying to recoup it by playing 50 cents the next time. That makes no sense because you would have to hit twice in a row to make a profit, whereas by moving UP you only need to hit once no matter how much you've lost previous.
Now, obviously there are other factors to consider...
1) They are different types of games.
2) In poker, skills plays a factor.
But in poker, variance (luck) is the one constant, just like roulette.
Again, I obviously don't advocate moving up to recoup a loss to a bad beat, but theoretically it does make some sense. Especially if your losses are because of bad beats and not a lack of skill.
I just thought this was interesting to think about.
