Bitcoin Forum

With previous discussions of the martingale strategy here in the forum, it led me to thinking about other strategies in gambling and see whether most of you use it or if any of you believe in it or not. To explain briefly, the d'alembert strategy requires the gambler to increase their wager for every time he loses for one unit. So if you first bet with a $1 and you lose, in your next bet you will increase your bet to $2. But if you win, you will decrease your bet for the next round by one unit again. The logic is that you chase your losses but you also minimize the money you will be spending once you finally win.

Why does this not work? Well simply because you never know when you can actually win again. Every match in gambling is an independent event that does not correlate with the previous round. You would have to keep winning back to back if you have any hopes of recovering some losses.

I still see this as Martingale strategy. If you win and you do not stop gambling, you can not continue to increase the money but start from the smallest amount that you started from until you win again. The strategy does not work at all. What I have noticed some years ago while gambling is that the casinos are doing everything possible to earn money from you. No matter the strategy you use, it will still be a means the casinos are using to earn money from you.

You've answered it yourself. That's exactly why it doesn't work sometimes. You can lose 20 times in row but you are not ready for that, your balance is not ready for that and you just lose it all. And if you, say, ready for losing 20 times in a row it can happen that you lose 21st time again.

Another gambler's fallacy, that supplies extra losses to the player in contrast to wins. Losing $10 means wagering $20, in an 8 losing streak, 10+20+30+40+50+60+70+80 = 360 the house profit more, as the possibility of winning after increasing to a unit isn't guaranteed. An opposite of Oscar Grind Strategy, (https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/guides/strategy/oscars-grind-betting-system/) that requires maintaining the same bet amount after a lose and only increase after a win. D' Alembert isn't conducive even for sport gamers, it's not worth the gamble and the profit won't get near to what was lost.

This is my first time hearing about this strategy, and at first glance, this seems like more of a "safe" approach to martingale. In the end, both strategies are just disasters waiting to happen. Both strategies would need an unlimited amount of funds and no max betting cap in order for them to actually work.

Let me make a small note. In this betting system, "one unit" does not mean one unit per se, but a constant, which can be any number. This strategy differs from the Martingale strategy in that it uses an arithmetic progression, where the progression coefficient is exactly equal to this one unit, and a positive coefficient is used after a loss (except for the first one), and a negative coefficient after a win. The Martingale strategy uses a geometric progression, the coefficient which is usually equal to two, and is applied after each loss. The negative coefficient is not used.

As a summary, we can say that this strategy is no more effective than the Martingale strategy (both strategies actually do not work), but at least it allows you to lose at a lower rate than the Martingale strategy, and perhaps therefore it will give the gambler time to think about whether he made a mistake with his choice of strategy..

I have seen people that lost more than 20 times and they will think the casinos is manipulating. Thinking it is not a provably fair game but when this happened on two or more gambling sites they are using, they know that casino is not a place to make money. This can be an unusual situation but it is still happening.

The highest consecutive loss I have experienced in a casino was 8 times. I was trying martingale again at the time and it has been long. It was a failed attempt again just like before.

I'd say martingale is better lol. They basically do almost the same thing but martingale lets you repeat the cycle WAAAAY more longer even if you lose multiple times. I'd imagine if it were this strat, you winning at around half, losing, then losing again, your session is basically over since it'd go past your bankroll. Compare that to martingale, you'd have to be unlucky multiple times AND more to lose. I mean just comparing the chances you're more likely to profit with martingale. Granted it's minimum but hey, it's profit.

I've come across these systems before and it runs into the same issue as most progressive betting strategies there’s no guarantee of a win within a reasonable timeframe. A long losing streak can still drain your bankroll before you ever get the chance to recover. I think these systems give an illusion of control rather than an actual edge. At the end of the day bankroll management and knowing when to walk away are more important than any betting progression strategy.

There are so many betting systems out there, but none of them really work, they just make things more complicated.

The post below you is right; it’s still a Martingale strategy, but since you decrease your bet every time you win, your bankroll lasts longer. Still, if you’re really unlucky, you could still get wiped out.

These methods might seem interesting for newbies, but once they try them, they’ll realize that gambling should be kept simple. The best approach is to use proper bankroll management betting a fixed percentage of your total bankroll.

I don't really know about this strategy and just heard about it maybe because I don't play roulette that often. I tried to find out. Basically I see this strategy has similarities with martingale. Every time you lose the bet will be increased. However the difference lies in the amount of bets that are increased because martingale is much riskier because the bet will be doubled every time you lose. My question is can this strategy be done other than roulette? Sorry, because I rarely play that game.

why would it only be limited to 1 game? You can basically apply a strategy to almost any game in a casino other then slots. Some games may have a lower max then others but dice, blackjack, baccarat all could use this strat. I wouldn't advise it but it can be done.

I think it wouldn’t work in roulette if done automatically since the base amount has to decrease when you win. But if you do it manually, of course, it can be applied to any gambling game. Just keep in mind that casinos and sportsbooks always impose betting limits, so there’s a point where the strategy won’t work as expected.

This is high risk than martingale the way I understand it especially if you are using high bet amount as 1 unit.

Your bet will accumulate in long term since you will surely encounter more losses than win that will make your bet grow in the end despite winning some since you are just decreasing 1 unit when you win and not reset to your original bet.

This is interesting new betting strategy that I’m not aware.

Most of this strategies are strategy to lure people deeply into gambling but however, a responsible gambler should understand and know when to keep applying them, I mean; when they should use such strategies because anyone who is suffering for lack of bankroll would never have that opportunity to use this particular strategy because they lack of funds. But whenever they are sufficiently enough they could start applying such strategies to make sure they target their initial losses and to recover them.

Typically, if you start your bet with $5, within five consecutive losses, you would have increased your bet to nothing less than $80, and then what happens when you eventually lose the fifth bet? You have lost way too much by using that strategy. Chasing loss is a bad betting approach, and it can only lead to more loss. If you are working with a daily budget of $20 as the maximum amount for a day's bet, using this method will mean that you will easily gamble above the set budget you are working with. This sort of betting system looks nice when you are considering that you are winning and when you are doing so theoretically. In practice, the strategy you should implement should allow you to gamble less and not encourage you to gamble with a huge amount.

I thought that this system is called the martingale strategy or does it have a different name? I haven't heard this before but all I can say is that this betting system is a failed one. Doubling your stakes on the next round of your bet can be very risky, you don't really know if the next round would be a win loss. What if you end up having three to five losing streaks that means you'd continue losing. The safest thing to do in gambling is to maintain a moderate stake, especially if you are betting on casino games. These games are not predictable so be careful.

It's similar to the martingale strategy, but my answer to this is that it doesn't really work because it ends up ina double or triple loss... it's possible to win on some days but if you continue gambling like this then overtime you are going to end up losing more than you win from it...The only people that can use this betting system comfortable are those that are rich, someone struggling financially can't keep up with such a strategy consistently because you would run out of ammunition... remember to always risk only what you can afford to lose or what you can replace easily

This sounds very much like Martingale strategy to me, but trying to refurnish it with a unit increase and decrease seem to it a very good strategy, which is not. And that's the thing with gambling. There are so many terminologies, but with similar meanings, which might keep a gambler moving in circles without him/her knowing.

You see the trick here, a unit isn't that big, so as a gambler continues to apply such strategy, he/she won't see the danger in it. It's just like adding $1 over and over again, thinking that you ain't really lossing much. Nice try, but this strategy is quite risky, since a 10 straight loss is always possible.

I don't really know if people actually benefit from using this double stake system but personally I have lost a lot of Money using it. I prefer to stake what I can lose comfortably instead of doubling up my stakes to recover. This system encourages addiction and chasing losses. I have won a huge amount of money with just a dollar, I didn't have to stake x2 of what I lost in the initial bet, I lot of people gamble like this and wonder where they are going wrong.. majority of people that lose more than they earn use this system of gambling, it's pointless to continue doing something that doesn't work.

In my opinion, there is no strategy that is effective for slot games and other gambling that depend on luck. In the case of sports betting, I recommend that people do not follow these failed strategies and focus on having good bankroll management and improving their game analysis skills and never choosing a simple bet on a game that has very low odds.

This is an "adulterated" martingale strategy. Whoever thought about must have said to himself, "I want to create a new strategy that is like the martingale strategy but not exactly the martingale strategy".  ;D Because I see no difference

Perfect response to it. It just can't work.

D'Alembert, Paroli, Labouchère, Fibonacci are all martingale systems and as we know you can't make profits with them because you can't indefinitely increase your stake, so at one point you will lose. And in the long run you won't beat the house edge with such system, it will instead very likely burn your bankroll very quickly and push you to take loans or to bet funds you can't afford to lose in order to pursue your crazy strategy.

It's very similar to Martingale, and as we all know that there is no perfect strategy, so for me, don't use any of them. Just play at your own phase, if you want to YOLO then good, but if are very conservative then you don't need to double after every losses, just stake what you wanted on the next round. Sooner or later if you got back on the game because suddenly you become lucky then you can recover and maybe win some.

And as you have said, it's the randomness of the game, there are no pattern as each result is independent of the last one. Maybe if you see that heads will be the next outcome because the previous one is tails, then bet on it.

Honestly I don't understand why this is even considered a strategy. Martingale at least has some idea of "I have enough money to survive any losing streak". There is no idea at all (correct or not) just a random betting algorithm. The guy was very lucky that with such a stupid "strategy" he went down in history. As I understand it, all these stupid strategies started to appear when the casino margin became adequate and it became more difficult to understand how the casino was beating you.

i mean it is business after all they have to make sure that they have profit or else they will not be able to operate any more

these strategies that gamblers try is only to win for the short term even if it doesn’t work meaning they try to win per round but no matter what we do the house always gets something out of us maybe recovering our losses is just a myth

even this strategy depends on luck

you are hoping that for the next round you play you finally win that’s why you just keep on doubling your money because you are hoping to win and cover what you have lost
it may even make more sense to bet more in sports gambling since there is much more confidence in sports betting i believe since analysis is involved

And up to this day, that is the case, we have the house edge. And even if you have a lot of money trying martingale or whatever strategy, casinos has certain limit, so mathematically, you can only reach certain numbers that you can double the last amount because casinos have limit bets.

As for this strategy, who knows, maybe it will work for a certain period, until the game become so difficult because of RNG and luck is not on your side. So there are no strategy to beat the casino. If you wanted to make money easy the, if you win, then exit and not come back playing and think that you can still more. Otherwise, we all fall for their trap.

This forum makes you learn new things everyday.

How haven't I learned about this D'Alembert Betting System? From the OP it doesn't look like one can use this strategy for long as a way to continue to win. And for your own bank, if you are on a losing streak, you are better off not using it.

It can't turn things around for you.

Strategies, or we should call them betting patterns since a strategy is supposed to comprise moves that give you a strategic advantage and these don't, are nothing more than a bunch of different ways of losing more money than usual. I don't know why some people use them, I know that they believe the strategy they are applying might help them recover their money back, but that doesn't work in 99% of the cases, but people still try it even after knowing that. It's crazy, if you ask me.

I used to use the martingale strategy when I was new in gambling, but I used to do it from my own side, and later on I discovered that increasing your bet by 1x after each loss is a very famous strategy called the martingale strategy. I remember how I used to lose all my bankroll after at least a couple of successful recoveries whenever I tried this strategy, which means, if you try it and it works, don't try it repeatedly with the hope that it will work every single time because it doesn't.

It's worse than martingale and martingale is pretty bad.

The losses increase and pile up very quickly if it's even just slightly off of 50/50 which it will be, especially in a game with a house edge.

With martingale at least you only need one win but with this you need a a whole series of wins to make back all of the increasing bets.

I have used that strategy many times in the games I bet on, I have used in on sweet bonanza, lucky wheel, crash, aviator, I have systemically applied it in all the games I bet on, even in visual I have used it, and do you know the experience I had? From my experience, I can tell you that the strategy does not make you to win the casino. Generally, there's no gambling strategy that can make someone because a successful gambling, if you try any strategy and you won, it was a lucky day for you, if you repeat the casino next time with same strategy, you will be disappointed.

As we put it this way, martingale or d'alembert strategy, neither one won't give you the huge winnins if you are not in luck. Luck factor is the main player when it comes to most casino games. So in my opinion, don't push yourself using these strategies, because it may work for certain times but not a guarantee that you will get your winnings.

Thus, whether you are familiar with this strategy or not, won't really give that much impact when it comes to your winning chance. Gamblers are always looking for ways how to beat the system, but in reality, you won't in the long run.

I see no difference between this and martingale strategy they both have similar tactics and I don’t like them.

Rather than killing yourself over some strategy that won’t work in the end why not just focus on improving your analytical skills and also how to manage your fund properly? That would help you get better results than to depend on strategies that won’t give you anything - if they really were working so many gamblers would have become millionaires already.

I have never heard of this gambling strategy. So, this is basically just martingale too but with a twist that whenever we win, we'll have to adjust and decrease the bet which sounds fine if we're always a winner but it's the opposite that what martingale is for the winners. But no one will know when we'll be winners and you're right OP that's why this strategy doesn't work and someone who follows this strategy is not different from the other gamblers that does the same thing as what martingale does.

Exactly, this is still a merely glorified martingale strategy, I would likely investigate the personalities of those behind these wager increase strategies. Sounds to me like they are shareholders in some casinos because their strategies does nothing else but enrich casinos from my standpoint. Strategies, no matter which one and how good it looks at the start are hardly sustained for a long time. The only strategy I've seen that lasts for as long as you want to remain in gambling is gambling in moderation, having a gambling budget and staking with amounts you are prepared to loose. Safe from that, all others mostly leads to heavy addiction and terrible financial loss since the casino is a sea that doesn't get filled up with oceans of gambling deposits draining into them.

No, I think you might have misunderstood the strategy.

The only difference here is that you decrease your bet every time you win, but when you lose, you still double your bet until you win, just like the standard Martingale.

So if you’re on a 5-win streak, your base bet remains low, allowing you to withstand a long losing streak better than the regular Martingale. But looking at the bigger picture, if we accept that no strategy guarantees a win, this method simply helps you last longer compared to other strategies, not necessarily beat the system.

most likely the ones who use this strategy and find success in it are ones with huge amounts of money and huge amounts of luck

that is the only way to find success in this kind of gambling strategy for you to have unlimited budget but even then remember that this strategy includes reducing your wager so if you lose again it is pretty much just the same amount that you won previously

With D'Alembert it's basically increase by one unit after a loss, decrease one unit after a win so if you have something like this LLLLL WW LLL W LL it'll look like -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 +6 +5 -4 -5 -6 +7 -6 -7. With that series you're sitting at -25. You must have a streak of wins or it just getting bigger. You would need 4 wins in a row (8,7,6,5) to turn that series into a profit of 1.

If it stays nice and even-ish it's fine but it won't. Over time the gap between wins and losses gets really big and just gets bigger due to the house edge. The losses get out of control very quickly.

Even if there was no house edge and it was a pure 50/50 coin flip it would still get out of control because it's never going to be just a nice perfect split of wins and losses.

It's a hit or miss with games like slots. D'Alembert or martingale or whatever they call them. Someone who's got to stomach losses can be the ones who'll become the last man standing and that only means that guy has a lot of money ready to lose and to test both of these strategies.

Aside from those that you've mentioned if it's with sports betting. I'll also add about the control of our emotions. Because sometimes, we're full out gamblers but then when the tide changes, we become fanatics. And that's why instead of following our analysis, we become the fans and typically bets for high odds to our favorite teams even if it means huge risk for us.

No, the d'Alembert betting strategy doesn't work that way. In d'Alembert, you don't double your bet when you lose. That's what you do in a classic Martingale strategy. With d'Alembert, you only need to add 1 unit every time you lose. So, compared to classic Martingale, you'll survive longer with d'Alembert in case you're on a losing streak.

Another difference is during a win. With the classic Martingale strategy, you'll go back to step 1. In d'Alembert, you just decrease your bet with 1 unit.

All of them are just Martingale strategies.
D'Alembert, Fibonnaci, Labouchere, Oscar, Piroli, all of them but reversed, they are just Martingale with a fancy name and different increases or decreases in betting.

And apart from the strategy they derive from, they share one more thing, just like the original, no matter what you try, you can't beat math and probabilities!! It's as simple as that, if there were a system in this world to beat a luck game long run in this age of technological advancement and simulation capabilities, we would already know it and casinos would be bankrupt by now.


Also in d'Alembert you will get bankrupted by simple chains of 4 to 2 loses vs wins, you might survive with Martinglae to a chain of of 5/1/5/1/ but with d'Alembert you would be bleeding money as you would need 14 wins, meaning already you would need a bigger % of wins than losses, ona 16 to 10 ratio, which as you know, is mathematically impossible.

Martingale is playing Russian roulette, you might now get killed from the first try but at least you will get shot in a flash. D'Alembert is getting skinned alive.



 

Most people have not heard of this strategy before but it is what they have been doing since they learn about martingale strategy before huge losses taught them lessons. Martingale strategy will not let you repeat anything more longer. It makes the game short for the gambler. This strategy is still also martingale strategy.

I even do not know if some people know what martingale strategy is because what the OP explained is nothing more than Martingale strategy. Or is it different?

There is a slight difference of what actually it is if you're going to analyze how that strategy works compared to martingale. But I am with you that we can just conclude that it's not that much of a martingale system and almost the same as is. And you are right about there are people that despite they are gamblers, they don't know even what martingale strategy is. They're only fond of how gambling games they play are and the regulations about it. But about such strategies that are being applied when they gamble, it doesn't require them to know what actually it isa nd how it works.

I think betting systems only makes gamblers more addicted, they give you hope of winning but In the end you'd be disappointed because it won't work out the way you planning. We have been introduced to different systems and strategies over the years but none of us have been successful from it, this only tells you one thing, there are no strategies that can work, the best thing to do is to play for entertainment and just hope to get lucky. Just like you said it's still a martingale strategy, if you get unlucky you would lose big time, just learn to be on the safe side.

Sorry if my sentence is not clear, yes I want to know if this strategy can be applied to games other than roulette? and thank you for telling me, if it can be applied to blackjack I might try playing another time using this strategy, I'm quite curious and after I read the D'alembert strategy has the advantage of helping players manage their bankroll well. However, on the other hand I also understand that every strategy will not be able to generate stable profits.

I don't use any of these strategies,  it makes me feel like I'm chasing my losses. Since I gamble for fun and only on weekends, I don't find them necessary. I already have an amount that I use for playing my games, and if it works out fine, If it doesn't, that's fine too. It's just like investing money in relaxation. I could use that same money to go see a movie at the cinema, and I just hang out with friends and gamble.

 So, the Martingale and  D'Alembert  strategy are used by people who gamble for profit, so they try different strategies or methods of staking to see if they will get their win. But the win is not guaranteed, as you can see. I've not seen anybody in this tread who said they used it and won a lot. I feel that it's not a safe way of gambling, because it's not guaranteed. You're just doubling your money to play the next game that you're not sure of. You're only just increasing your stakes, and it's not like you have inside information on how to win the game. So, I don't find it safe.

The strategy do not make gamblers looks like they are chasing after their loss. It makes them think that they can have a good profit after going for like 5 or more rounds of losing. But the problem is that in casino games, someone may continue to lose at times even more than 20 times which is where the problem lies. It is a very bad strategy that should not be used. And just like I have posted before, it is still martingale strategy.

I think gamblers can no longer handle using the Martingale method or the one mentioned by OP. Even if you start with just a $1 bet, after 20 straight losses, you'd need over $1,000 just to place the next bet.

That’s $1,000 just to win $1, who would risk that much?

If you follow the classic gambling advice of starting only with 1% to 2% of your bankroll per unit, you won't have to go home early with d'Alembert, that is, even if you're unlucky and have gone through a 10-game losing streak. With Martingale, even if you start with 1% per betting unit, you're already forced to apply stop loss after the 6th bet because you can't anymore afford the 7th. 


Using the same analogy of death, gambling is indeed dying, but the goal is to die slowly. In which case, d'Alembert is better than Martingale. Well, luck is the final arbiter, of course.

There is no difference between the Martingale strategy and this strategy, just a little bit different. For me there is no point doubling your stake in the next round of any bet to increase your chances of win or recovering your loses, because you may end up losing continuously at the expenses of chasing loses and at last you will have no bankroll to double your hustle. So it's better you gamble with what you can afford to lose, than taking unnecessary risk and hoping for a positive results where there is non.

This strategy is the same as Martingale, continue to increase the bet amount if you lose and will reduce it to the initial bet when you win, it looks easy but not always as it seems.


You have answered, and actually it is not only because we do not know when we will win but also there are limits in the casino, you will not be able to increase your bets as you please, there is a limit to your bets so when you have reached that limit and lost then you will not be able to recover your previous losses, but lost a lot because of that strategy.

Exactly. Any strategy is just a strategy, there is no certainty that when you use a strategy it can increase your chances of winning. Because every match in gambling is an independent event and you still need to make the right analysis on each match to be able to make good predictions. If you win then it's your luck, but if you lose just try again next time. But still gamble according to your financial ability, no need to force yourself or increase the amount of bets when you yourself can't afford it.

Just the definition of it, and doesn't mean it will work all the time, or it might not simply work because in the end, there are flaws, specially on how we should manage our budget. And obviously, everything is base on luck. It's not that every time, when you play, there will be luck on your side.

But it good that we have this so called betting system like martingale. I mean for gamblers, there's nothing wrong with trying this strategy. But at the same time, you should also be open minded that this is not a guarantee to win.

But the problem is the same, sooner or later you will still get home, because of that point difference in every chain.


My humble opinion is that the system that actually gives you a b*j before is the best when it comes to this  ;D
The problem with d'Alembert is also that is lacks the enthusiasm of a win, since you will never get max pots either, yes Martingale gives you one emasyly 1 point profit at a 1 million ebt after 20 losses, but it still feels like you won something at least, system that minimize losses lack this appeal also.


Anyhow, since we had this topic has anyone tested this to tell us how they feel after 24h?

No, the betting system have nothing to do with your addiction. Every way of making money is an opportunity in life, it is left to you to choose if you like the offer while acknowledging the risk that may be involved. Just like any other business the casino business will always give you the possibility of winning if you bet with them. They will offer you chance to win but deep down its apparently a strategy for them to profit. If you choose to be addicted that is a personal problem. You have the right to quit gambling whenever you want to.

20 times wow, that's a heavy losing streak, imagine using this betting system for that number of time and losing everything, that wouldn't just be a double loss it's something that might take you months to recover both financially and mentally. I haven't really experienced something like this but I have had multiple losses using this betting system. In the long run it's bound to fail whether we like it or not. I believe these casinos wants gamblers to always use it so they it can be easy for them to lose their money. Risk management is key.