The D'Alembert Betting System

[kotajikikox]

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.

[Oshosondy]

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.

[Betwrong]

~
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'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.

[Accardo]

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, 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.

[acroman08]

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.

[viljy]

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.

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..

[_act_]

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.

[Wexnident]

~

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.

[Text]

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.

[Japinat]

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.

[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.

[yahoo62278]

...

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.

[Ziskinberg]

My question is can this strategy be done other than roulette? Sorry, because I rarely play that game.

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.

[Eternad]

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.

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.

[DPHOR]

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.

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.

[Marvelockg]

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.

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.

[rachael9385]

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 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.

[DaNNy001]

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

[Felicity_Tide]

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.

[Victorybit1]

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.