Refusing the idea of a recovery bet

The belief that some specific bet will make back a deficit is the mechanism underneath chasing, and it has to be refused as a category rather than argued with case by case.

There is no bet that recovers a loss. There is only the next bet, priced exactly as it would have been priced if the previous ones had won, and the deficit is not an input to it.

The opposite error exists too. Refusing to bet at all after a loss, on an opportunity that would otherwise be taken, is the same distortion pointing the other way.

What follows from that is less comfortable. It is obvious stated plainly and extremely hard to hold at the moment it applies, which is why it belongs in a written rule rather than in judgement.

What to do with it. Fix the stake before knowing the day's position, so the deficit never enters the sizing decision at all.