That’s precisely why it doesn’t work!
No matter what odds you choose when you win at the bookie you dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. If you’re laying on an exchange or dutching, you end up with greater and greater losses on the other side.
I mean this is a common fallacy so I don’t blame you for falling for it. But I’m pretty sure all those who’ve been throwing supercomputers at the sports markets for the last ten years saw the hole in your argument a while ago.
Ask yourself this for an alternative proof: if you “knew” you would eventually lose your entire balance at the bookie, why are you bothering to lay?!
Also, even if you have a VIP account with 1.7% commission or you use inferior sm odds, you’re losing quite a chunk before you even come to the vig on every bet.
What you’re suggesting is logically equivalent to martingale (or any other variant like fibonacci staking that has been trivially disproved for centuries).
It simply does not work for what turn out to be fairly obvious reasons.
If you still don’t believe me, ask yourself what’s the skybet max liability on a VIP account for horse racing or tier 1 football. Then ask yourself the probability of reaching that liability prior to busting out at odds of evens, 4/1, 10/1 and 100/1. This idea has been done to death over and over and over. It still doesn’t work!