The D'Alembert revisited

[Picasso]

The D’Alembert…with a twist

(if you are unfamiliar with the D’Alembert see: http://echeckcasinos.ca/alembert-system/or simply Google «D’Alembert betting»)


All progressions are not made equally and the D’Alembert is a fairly «conservative progression» compared to a Martingale. If you have played the D’Alembert regularly, you would have noticed the horror of seeing your bet size going up slowly and when you hit a 16 straight losing streak, ouch. It will take a mighty long time to crawl out of that rut and your bankroll may be seriously depleted. Here is a twist that will let you «wait out» the storms when they arrive.

The D’Alembert «with a twist»:

Increase you bet by one unit after a single loss
Increase your bet by two units if you lose a double, 3x if you lose a triple etc

Decrease you bet by one unit after single win
Decrease your bet by two units if you win a double, 3x if you win a triple, etc
Decrease you bet by 2 units if you win a BJ

[zengrifter]

User is banned, content deleted.

[zengrifter]

User is banned, content deleted.

[Picasso]

BTW, I find no immediate evidence that the french scientist of the same name actually invented this silly progression.

I did find several internet sites that attribute the system to Jean-Baptiste le Rond d'Alembert, but internet sites are hardly evidence.

[zengrifter]

User is banned, content deleted.

[Picasso]

Not a word in any official citation, Wikipedia, Brittanica, etc.

From Wikipidia under his 'Legacy'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Alembert

«While he made great strides in mathematics and physics, d'Alembert is also famously known for incorrectly arguing inCroix ou Pile that the probability of a coin landing heads increased for every time that it came up tails. In gambling, the strategy of decreasing one's bet the more one wins and increasing one's bet the more one loses is therefore called theD'Alembert system, a type of martingale.»

From the French Wikipédia site

(it has a good section on the progression)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_le_Rond_D'Alembert

«L’attribution de cette martingale à D’Alembert est néanmoins sujette à caution.»

my lost in translation skills :

‘Attributing this system to d’Alembert is to be interpreted with caution'




The jury is still out on this one

[Picasso]

I noticed that some people are phishing my posts to find the supposed elixir, it’s not here. To avoid all misunderstanding, I edited the original post. The original discussion is about a modified d’Alembert that doesn’t work. Same goes for my modified Oscar (which I played for real money with negative results).

[seriousplayer]

After fiddling with the D’Alembert I guess I have improved on it (so I think), here it is (I call it the Hybrid-D'Alembert):

Increase bet by one unit on a loss
Increase bet by one unit on losing a double
Splits are treated like an individual hand (lose two splits, increase bet by 2, etc)

Decrease bet by one unit on a win
Decrease bet by two units on winning a blackjack
Decrease bet by two units when winning a double (by 3 if winning a triple, etc)

Ignore pushes
Winning one and losing the other on a split is a push
Winning a double on a split and losing a single on the other, decrease bet by one unit

Start the game with a minimum bet (1) until you lose
Increase your bet by one unit (2); if you win start over
If you lose, flat bet (1) until you win, then
Bet (3) units, if you lose, bet (4) units, if you lose, flat bet (1) until you win
Bet (5) units, if you lose, bet 6 units, if you lose, flat bet (1) until you win (you get the idea)

Now if you win 6 units, bet 5 units, if you lose, flat bet (1) until you win
Bet 6 units, win; bet 5 units, win; bet 4 units lose, flat bet (1) until you win
Bet 5 units etc

Here is a typical sequence

1W, 1W, 1W, 1L, 2W, 1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1W, 3L, 4L, 1L, 1W, 5BJ, 3L, 1L, 1L, 1W, 4DW, 2DL, 1L, 1L, 1W, 3W, 2W, START FROM 1

DL= DOUBLE LOSE
DW= DOUBLE WIN

It may look a bit complicated, but it isn’t. You’re actually playing two «games», the D’Alembert and flat betting. Losing 10-15-20 hands in a row will not kill you because almost all of those hands will be minimum bet and if you win say 5-8-10 hands in a row, you will most likely be winning large amounts! It’s a weird progression because sometime:

You’re increasing your bet on a win
You’re decreasing your bet on a win
You’re increasing your bet on a lost
You’re decreasing your bet on a lost

Give it a try on your blackjack software before putting it to a table or online casino. Let me know.

Happy Halloween everyone

Why does some players continue to keep modifying betting progressions when blackjack experts in this forum say it don't work? Picasso your modified D’Alembert still generates negative EV.

[Picasso]

So far, for me, it's generating money. Can you demonstrate the negative EV?

[seriousplayer]

So far, for me, it's generating money. Can you demonstrate the negative EV?

Time and time again experts in this forum has stated that betting progression does not generate positive EV because it doesn't take advantage of favorable situations. In your betting progression system you did not show how to take advantage of profitable situation created by removal of certain type of cards. Computer studied has shown that removing 10 valued cards and aces creates negative EV for the player and the removal of small cards 2 through 6 or 7 creates positive EV for the player. There is no way to get an edge at blackjack unless you have some idea of how to take advantage of these profitable situations. Your system is just rising bets without taking into consideration when these profitable situation occurs. You are just rising bets based on loses and wins. Any betting strategies that does not taking into consideration favorable situations based on past card seen don't work.

[Sonny]

So far, for me, it's generating money. Can you demonstrate the negative EV?

From the links you gave above:

"Many gamblers labor under the same mistaken belief, that a streak of losses must be counterbalanced by a streak of wins..."

"...the gambler usually wins a small net reward, thus appearing to have a sound strategy. However, the gambler's expected value does indeed remain zero (or less than zero) because the small probability that he will suffer a catastrophic loss exactly balances with his expected gain. (In a casino, the expected value is negative, due to the house's edge.)"

-Sonny-

[Picasso]

My approach with blackjack is a bit different. I don’t have the interest nor the means to reason with it using a pure math model, not exactly Cartesian. In that perspective, I can never claim to having found blackjack’s philosophers stone.

That being said, a qualitative experience with the game, like an anthropologist studying a tribe, a phenomenological understanding of the outcomes, that’s how I approach the game. Jungian.

Typically, by experience, there are 3 kinds of shoes:

- The one where almost all the players at the table are happy (a no brainer, larger bets are needed here)

- The one when almost all the people are unhappy or quit (you should either flat bet here or pass)

- The one where some lose, some win, the more «balanced» shoe (here, you need to raise on a lost, decrease on a win if you wish to come out on top)

Of course, blackjack is just one long shoe when you’re not counting, but these patterns are predominate. The Hybrid-D’Alembert addresses all these three situations well, it’ a very adaptive progression, built for the long haul. In that respect, it is better suited to play online; over the table play is slow, not enough hands per hour. Online offers better odds if you’re not counting.

Some will kill me with one sentence, all I suggest is that you try it, experience it, construct it or let it construct you.


corner_zpsaa06f311.jpg

[Three]

Some will kill me with one sentence, all I suggest is that you try it, experience it, construct it or let it construct you.

I surveyed Shrodinger about this cat. He checked the box for the cat is dead.