Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 41

Thread: The D'Alembert revisited

  1. 08-12-2012, 12:14 PM #1
    Picasso
    Picasso is offline
    Member Picasso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Québec, Canada
    Posts
    74

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    The D'Alembert revisited



    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
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Picasso; 08-12-2015 at 04:42 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  2. 08-12-2012, 12:28 PM #2
    zengrifter
    zengrifter is offline
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    San Clemente, CA
    Posts
    3,019

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    User is banned, content deleted.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  3. 08-12-2012, 12:29 PM #3
    zengrifter
    zengrifter is offline
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    San Clemente, CA
    Posts
    3,019

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    User is banned, content deleted.
    Last edited by zengrifter; 08-12-2012 at 12:32 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  4. 08-12-2012, 02:08 PM #4
    Picasso
    Picasso is offline
    Member Picasso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Québec, Canada
    Posts
    74

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  5. 08-12-2012, 06:39 PM #5
    Three
    Three is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The problem is you don't expect to win 50% of your decisions in blackjack. It is more like 47% barring pushes. I actually used this as a 1 to 5 unit system a couple trips during my progression days decades ago. I didn't make much money but had a big comeback were I never lost my 5 unit bet for a 7 hours and then left with the small profit I had before having the bad spell that made the big comeback necessary. You should have seen the fight the other ploppies (I was a ploppy in those early days but BJ was so easy to win it didn't take much understanding of the math to win regularly. My first year you had an advantage off the top playing BS) had over my "lucky chair" when I left after 7 hours with a net win of a unit for every hand won. It was not a good system for blackjack so I only used it a couple trips. I think I won money but it was not an improvement over what I did before that so I stopped.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  6. 08-12-2012, 07:08 PM #6
    Picasso
    Picasso is offline
    Member Picasso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Québec, Canada
    Posts
    74

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Tthree View Post
    The problem is you don't expect to win 50% of your decisions in blackjack. It is more like 47% barring pushes.
    I agree, wins are about 43,2% and losses are 47,9% and the rest are pushes, so you lose more hands than you win, but since you should win about 58% of your doubles, your bets should go down by two units or more, more often than they would go up. Accordingly, a natural occurs close to 5% of the time and on these I go down two units. This way of operating should help you keep your bets low.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  7. 08-12-2012, 07:23 PM #7
    zengrifter
    zengrifter is offline
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    San Clemente, CA
    Posts
    3,019

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    User is banned, content deleted.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  8. 08-13-2012, 09:35 PM #8
    Picasso
    Picasso is offline
    Member Picasso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Québec, Canada
    Posts
    74

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    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
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  9. 10-30-2014, 04:57 PM #9
    Picasso
    Picasso is offline
    Member Picasso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Québec, Canada
    Posts
    74

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Lightbulb The D'Alembert revisited (the sequel)

    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).
    Last edited by Picasso; 08-12-2015 at 04:42 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  10. 10-30-2014, 05:26 PM #10
    Norm
    Norm is offline
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,476
    Blog Entries
    59

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Exactly the same negative AP.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  11. 10-30-2014, 07:24 PM #11
    seriousplayer
    seriousplayer is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,591

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Picasso View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  12. 10-30-2014, 07:37 PM #12
    Picasso
    Picasso is offline
    Member Picasso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Québec, Canada
    Posts
    74

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    So far, for me, it's generating money. Can you demonstrate the negative EV?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  13. 10-30-2014, 08:46 PM #13
    seriousplayer
    seriousplayer is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,591

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Picasso View Post
    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.
    Last edited by seriousplayer; 10-30-2014 at 08:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Forum Rules

Other QFIT Sites

Internal Links

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.