Surrender and the progressionist

When one plays a progression, say the Fibonacci for instance, how does one handle the next bet following a surrender?

For example:

1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144

If you surrender 21, what is your next bet; quickly now, the dealer is waiting?

Bottom line question, is there an easy way to handle your next progressive bet following a surrender?

(by the way, I do not play the Fibonacci, it's only for illustration, I use my home grown Lose Less Progression)

On the Fibonacci: http://www.online-casinos.com/beginnersguide/faq17_fibonacci_System.asp
On the Lose Less Progression: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=11664

Surrender

Based on my simulations, the correct bet after a surrender is the minimum bet, the same as after a loss.
Although I was simulating a modified Fibonacci sequence, I'm sure that it would hold true for a pure progression.

Based on a legitimate simulation, it does not matter.

QFIT said:

Based on a legitimate simulation, it does not matter.

Click to expand...

I'll go further: based on legitimate simulation, the optimal bet is always zero, because this is a losing game. If you must play, stick to the minimum always, and you'll lose the least.

Blackjack forum censorship

QFIT said:

Based on a legitimate simulation, it does not matter.

Click to expand...

The other day, I posted a reply to this post mainly because I thought the use of the word "legitimate" was an affront to me. personally. Later I discovered that my reply had been removed without any notice of any kind.
This is the vilest form of censorship. I would hope that whoever removed my post would at least have the common courtesy to pm the reason for it's removal.

fredperson said:

Based on my simulations, the correct bet after a surrender is the minimum bet, the same as after a loss.
Although I was simulating a modified Fibonacci sequence, I'm sure that it would hold true for a pure progression.

Click to expand...

If one was playing a Fibonacci, after a loss, one would bet 'one step up', not minimum bet. When you surrender, you only lose half your progressed bet, which throws the whole progression into limbo, or does it?

Here is fredperson's missing post in its entirety:

"Oh, yes it does."

Would you care to elaborate on that at all? That statement by itself does not contain any value, especially since it is incorrect. At the very least you need to explain yourself instead of just making vague statements.

-Sonny-

Sonny said:

Here is fredperson's missing post in its entirety:

"Oh, yes it does."

Would you care to elaborate on that at all? That statement by itself does not contain any value, especially since it is incorrect. At the very least you need to explain yourself instead of just making vague statements.

-Sonny-

Click to expand...

Wow, society missed out on that? Indeed the "vilest form of censorship."

Seriously, when real censorship includes imprisonment, torture and death, let's keep the hyperbole to a reasonable level.

I suspect the he's losing patience with the unsupported and repetitive statements by those who for some reason believe that progressions work. I know I am.

picasso said:

If one was playing a Fibonacci, after a loss, one would bet 'one step up', not minimum bet. When you surrender, you only lose half your progressed bet, which throws the whole progression into limbo, or does it?

Click to expand...

I assumed the question concerned the use of Fibonacci as a win streak progression. If one were using it as a loss progression (which I would never recommend) then you would, in fact, go to the next step after a surrender.