Doubling vs. Constant Bets as Strategies for Gambling

Some gamblers use a doubling strategy as a way of improving their chances of coming home a winner. This paper reports on the results of a computer simulation study of the doubling strategy and compares the short term and long term results of doubling to gambling with a constant sized bet. In the short term players using a doubling strategy were more likely to win, then lose, however in the long term, the losses suffered by doublers were much greater than that suffered by constant bettors. It is argued that the use of a doubling strategy is related to an incomplete conceptualization of random events sometimes known as the 'law of averages.' A second simulation examined the fate of doubling in an ideal world in which the 'law of averages' was actually true. In this ideal world, doublers were much better off than constant bettors. The relationship of the results to a naive conceptualization of random events is discussed.