"Surge" as a gaming strategy (#316, Topic P)

President Bush, in his State of the Union address on 1/23, talked about a "surge" in troop deployment in Iraq, raising it by 21,500, or about 20%. The following day or two, I heard, over CNBC and BBC, two reporters' commentary, suggesting that this strategy is "a gamble." I had the same impression -- ever since the contents of this SOU address were leaked, several days before the actual delivery date. I was equating the president's proposal to a sure-fire gaming strategy I know (on Wall Street, gambling is a taboo word, preferring to use the word gaming instead, so I'll follow suit) -- the strategy applies well to playing roulette. One of roulette's many playing options is to bet on numbers (odd or even) or on color (red or black); the payoff is 1:1. The strategy, which is simplicity itself, calls for betting a single chip the first time. When (or whenever) you win, remove the winning chip(s) and leave only a single chip on the table. When you lose, double your bet. Thus, on the second turn (after losing the first turn), bet two chips. If this turn also results in a loss, double again -- making the bet 4 chips. If the luck is against you, the next bet would be 8 chips, then 16 chips, 32, 64, 128, etc. Any time one of these bets comes in, remove all chips except one. So, given the law of large numbers, you are bound to win once in a while -- though the winning might be a pittance. The loss, on the other hand, could mount quickly -- and exponentially. The strategy fails when one of two conditions, ostensibly remote, becomes applicable: (1) the house has a table limit -- no single bet beyond a pre-set large number -- say, 10,000 chips; or (2) you do not have money to double and redouble and redouble again. (On a doubling basis, on the 9th round, the bet would be 256; 10th, 512; 11th, 1024; 12th, 2048; 13th, 4096; and 14th, 8192). When either of these conditions becomes applicable, you lose, and lose spectacularly. The president's surge proposal, by merely adding 20% of troops, is not a doubling move -- it is hardly substantial (as felt by many in the Congress); the strategy, it seems to me, resembles betting both odd and even, or both red and black. With each turn, you win some and lose an equal amount, while allowing you to make the claim that you have won, which is technically -- though partially -- correct. Another claim you can make is that you are at the time for a long time -- which is a feat in itself. But -- and, in roulette, there is a big BUT. The roulette's turning table has 36 numbered numbers, 1 through 36, half odd and half even; in addition, it has a 0. When the ball lands on that slot, a 3%+ chance, the house wins all.