The D'Alembert Betting System

[Darker45]

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.

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.

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.

[stompix]

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.

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.

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. 

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.



 

[_act_]

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.

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 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 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?

[passwordnow]

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.

[rachael9385]

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 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.

[hyudien]

...

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.

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.

[Yucky]

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.

[_act_]

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.

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.

[freedomgo]

...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.

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?

[Darker45]

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[Samlucky O]

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.

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.

[Strongkored]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[retreat]

-snip-

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.

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.

[Dave1]

-snip-

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.

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.

[stompix]

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.

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

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.

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.

My humble opinion is that the system that actually gives you a b*j before is the best when it comes to this  
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?

[Agbamoni]

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 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.

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.

[rachael9385]

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.

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.

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.