Nice replies on my humble board, thanks!
For one time I'd take the opposite direction, say we want to join a table with the purpose of losing the entire money we get at the table.
What's the speedest way to lose, say a $1000 bankroll at a $10-$1000 limit table?
Is by betting the whole $1k in just on hand? No way. Actually this is the best move we can make to win, no matter the side we'll choose to wager on.
Same about splitting our one thousand in two parts, hoping to lose two more hands than we win. It's a difficult task, but we know that sooner or later will happen, especially by the HE disadvantage.
Splitting our bankroll in more portions (3, 4 or 10) won't do the job that easy, we need to lose more hands in the process.
Of course the slowest procedure we could think of about losing our $1000 is by flat betting $10, it will take a lot of time to win such "losing reward".
We'll bet an important part of our bankroll hoping to lose, then raising the rest part of it hoping to lose again. After all, two losses in a row comes out quite frequently along the way.
Mmmhhhhh, if we bet $300 then $700 when losing the first wager we are increasing the overall probability to be temporarily ahead of $400 and the process repeats.
Mathematically and no matter how we'll split the money wagered, the more we'll proportionally bet after a loss the higher will be the probabilities to win.
Providing finite spots.
I mean that an infinite process of raising the bets from one part increases the probability to win and on the other hand raises the risk of ruin up to the point where either betting limits or our bankroll cannot sustain the action.
We may come up to the wrong conclusion that the best way to lose is the best way to win, that is to bet a lot at the start or an important part of the bankroll, then promptly hoping to get more immediate losses (or wins).
Anything different from that will just dilute the entire process and as we well know time goes in casinos' favor.
Therefore, the more we play (hands), the more we are entitled to lose and the more we raise the wagers the more are the probabilities to lose.
I mean that the more aggressive we are playing at the start and higher will be the probability to win but itlr such procedure will surely fail; on the other hand light progressions may work just on very diluted and well calibrated spots where the probability to win (or lose) is quite restricted and whether properly assessed will sum up.
Imo, we shouldn't want to guess every single hand but just aiming to get a positive outcome on a couple (or 3) of hands serially considered.