Modified D'Alembert

[GLC]

Here's an idea that came to me from a comment Mogul made about the vibration aspect of D'Alembert.

What that means is when we add 1 unit to our bet after a loss and deduct 1 unit after a bet, every set of L/W nets us 1 unit.  It's easiest to see with the 1 and 2 unit bets.  We start by betting 1.  If we lose we add 1 to it and bet 2.  If we win the 2 unit bet, we will be +1.  This works for any set of numbers that are next to each other.  For example 5 and 6.  Lose 5 then win 6 and you are +1. 

When we're playing D'Alembert or what is commonly called +1, -1, whenever we get back to 1 unit after recovering from a losing run, we will be ahead the number of wins required to get back to 1.  For example, if we lose 5 times in a row we will have lost 1+2+3+4+5 = -15.  Then if we win 5 times in a row we will win 6+5+4+3+2 = +20.  +20 -15 = +5 which is the number of wins we had.

The problem with the basic concept is that we lose more bets than we win so as we play, our bets tend to drift upward gradually until our bets are getting dangerously high.  With a little luck, our Wins vs Losses will stay close together and we can reach a win target before getting into trouble.  The problem is that eventually we will get into trouble and have to decide what to do.  One option is to play what is called half peak.  That means that after we reach a certain predetermined low point, when we recover half of that back, we will take a loss and reset back to a 1 unit bet.  This forfeits some winnings, or curtails losses, but helps us keep our bet sizes manageable.  What we're trying to do is stay in the game long enough for a good winning sequence to recoup most or all of our losses.

Here's my little tweak on D'Alembert.  Let's play within a predetermined number of bets.  Say 1-2-3-4-5.  I will give you the progression line before I continue.  I think it will save a lot of confusion.

1-2-3-4-5; 2-4-6-8-10; 3-6-9-12-15; 4-8-12-16-20 etc...

We play on the 1-2-3-4-5 level until we lose a 5 unit bet.  Then, instead of going to 6 units, we move to the 2nd level of 2-4-6-8-10.  At the 1st level we win 1 unit every time we have a L/W sequence but on the 2nd level we win 2 units every time we have a L/W sequence. 

It's possible to actually be ahead when we lose a 5 unit bet on the 1st level if we had enough L/W sequences before getting behind 5 bets.  If we're not in the hole too far, say -5 or less, we could start over at 1 unit and replay the 1-2-3-4-5 level.  But if we're down more than 5 units when we finally lose the 5 unit bet, we move to the 2-4-6-8-10 level.  Now we have a decision to make.  Do we play this level until we recover all losses from the 1st level or do we only recover most of the losses from the 1st level before we drop back to 1-2-3-4-5.  There's a risk factor to consider here.  Each will have to decide for themselves how much risk they want to take.  The danger is staying at the upper levels longer than you have to because if you enter a losing streak at the higher levels you can drop down into the hole quite rapidly.

Food for thought,

GLC

[yohannes.mr]

Good progression GLC, is more safer than originaly., maybe i try this prog over baccarat 

[thelaw]

Hey GLC,

Just ran a quick test using your method with one slight modification (only bet minimum necessary to get back to last high bank after win).

This is a "monster sequence" that one of the senior members provided a while back for testing.

L/W   Bet   +/-   Bank

L   1   -1   -1   
L   2   -2   -3
L   3   -3   -7
W   4   +4   -3
W   3   +3   00
L   1   -1   -1
W   2   +2   1
W   1   +1   2   
L   1   -1   1   
L   2   -2   -1
L   3   -3   -4
W   4   +4   00
L   2   -2   -2
L   3   -3   -5
L   4   -4   -9
L   5   -5   -14
L   2   -2   -16
L   4   -4   -20
L   6   -6   -26
L   8   -8   -34
L   10   -10   -44
L   3   -3   -47
L   6   -6   -53
W   9   +9   -44
W   6   +6   -38
L   3   -3   -41
L   6   -6   -47
W   9   +9   -38
L   6   -6   -44
L   9   -9   -53
L   12   -12   -65
L   15   -15   -80
L   4   -4   -84
L   8   -8   -92
W   12   +12   -80
W   8   +8   -72
W   4   +4   -68
W   15   +15   -53
W   12   +12   -41
L   9   -9   -50
L   12   -12   -62
W   15   +15   -47
L   12   -12   -59
W   15   15   -44
W   12   12   -32
L   9   -9   -41
L   12   -12   -53
W   15   15   -38
W   12   12   -26
W   9   9   -17
W   6   6   -11
W   3   3   -8

Although it finished in the red, it held up pretty well given the overall imbalance (-34/+21).

This is a very solid idea, and may be a great strategy with a little tweaking.

Thanks!

[GLC]

One thing you're doing that I didn't intend is that you move from one level down to the next lower if you win the lowest bet of a level. i.e. if we're betting at the 3-6-9-12-15 level and we are betting 9 units and win, then we bet 6 units and win, then we bet 3 units and win.  At this point we don't drop down to the 10 unit bet of the level below us.  We continue to bet 3 units.  We only drop back down to lower levels if we win enough units at the level we're on and we don't feel like risking playing at a higher level so we drop down a level. But when we do drop down a level, we drop down to the lowest bet of that level, not the highest bet.  Or the lowest bet that a win will give us a new high balance.

For the most aggressive play, we would stay at the highest level we reach until we had recovered all lost units.  Or, if you like, until we can make a bet smaller to just bring us to a new profit.  So, if we're betting at the 4-8-12-16-20 level and we win an 8 unit bet which brings us to only 2 units down, we can just bet a 3 unit bet and it can bet the 3 unit bet at the 1-2-3-4-5 level rather than the 3 in the 3-6-9-12-15 level.  That way, if we lose, we will be at the lowest level thus helping to keep our bets lower.

Your way worked out better in this case, but had a couple of key wins been losses it would have turned out much worse than it did.

What do you think?

GLC

[thelaw]

Hey GLC,

I completely agree about holding at a certain minimum bet level until we recoup our losses.

I think that your overall original concept is really impressive as it works with the ebbs and flows of the game. Now it's just a matter of finding the right progression.

This may also work really well on rare events.

I'll keep looking into this as time permits, and see how different progressions gold up with the "monster sequence".

Thanks!

[thelaw]

One thing you're doing that I didn't intend is that you move from one level down to the next lower if you win the lowest bet of a level. i.e. if we're betting at the 3-6-9-12-15 level and we are betting 9 units and win, then we bet 6 units and win, then we bet 3 units and win.  At this point we don't drop down to the 10 unit bet of the level below us.  We continue to bet 3 units.  We only drop back down to lower levels if we win enough units at the level we're on and we don't feel like risking playing at a higher level so we drop down a level. But when we do drop down a level, we drop down to the lowest bet of that level, not the highest bet.  Or the lowest bet that a win will give us a new high balance.

For the most aggressive play, we would stay at the highest level we reach until we had recovered all lost units.  Or, if you like, until we can make a bet smaller to just bring us to a new profit.  So, if we're betting at the 4-8-12-16-20 level and we win an 8 unit bet which brings us to only 2 units down, we can just bet a 3 unit bet and it can bet the 3 unit bet at the 1-2-3-4-5 level rather than the 3 in the 3-6-9-12-15 level.  That way, if we lose, we will be at the lowest level thus helping to keep our bets lower.

Your way worked out better in this case, but had a couple of key wins been losses it would have turned out much worse than it did.

What do you think?

GLC

Hey GLC,

Just found something interesting :

If you play through with the original progression, you end up with -36 at the end of the "monster sequence". However, if you keep the same progression, but parley every win (so 2 wins together) then you end up with +58 at the end of the sequence.

Here is an example (first 6 spins):

L          1          -1          -1
L          2          -2          -3
L          3          -3          -6
W         4          +4         -2 (carry whole +8 win over for parlay)
W         11(3+8)+11      +9
L          1          -1          +8

So basically I'm just parlaying every win one bet, then dropping back to the original base unit.

It seems that parlays may be the safest way to stay ahead with the smallest amount of risk.

Does that make sense?

Thanks!

[GLC]

Hey GLC,

Just found something interesting :

If you play through with the original progression, you end up with -36 at the end of the "monster sequence". However, if you keep the same progression, but parley every win (so 2 wins together) then you end up with +58 at the end of the sequence.

Here is an example (first 6 spins):

L          1          -1          -1
L          2          -2          -3
L          3          -3          -6
W         4          +4         -2 (carry whole +8 win over for parlay)
W         11(3+8)+11      +9
L          1          -1          +8

So basically I'm just parlaying every win one bet, then dropping back to the original base unit.

It seems that parlays may be the safest way to stay ahead with the smallest amount of risk.

Does that make sense?

Thanks!

Based on what you said, I'm thinking the following is the way it should turn out.  It's still a win, but not quite as much as you calculated.

L          1          -1          -1
L          2          -2          -3
L          3          -3          -6
W         4          +4         -2 (carry whole +8 win over for parlay)
W         8          +8        +6
L          1          -1          -5

It works well with your monster sequence, but I can assure you there is a set of spins that will cause it to tank just like all other progressions.  The spins you're working with have a lot of double wins which makes it work well with this idea.  But, sometimes we can go a very long time with no double wins or at least not enough to overcome all the losses.  That is until your draw down gets pretty scary. 

(A good exercise is to pick your own spins and every time you need a double win, pick a number that will cause you to lose.  Then, look at the spins you just got and see how ordinary they look.  Usually it's nothing that unusual and you realize that this can happen any time.)

If you have enough bank, scary draw downs shouldn't be that scary.  Just remember that your bank can't be more than you're willing to lose at any one trip to the casino.

If you start getting very nervous when you're getting toward the end of your session bank, you're probably playing with too few bullets.  Or they're howitzer shells when they should be 45's or even 22LR's.

Here's a scary statement.   I think you should have at least 300 units to play this progression.  I think you should have 4 more back-up banks of 300 units each.  And, I think those 1500 units should represent no more than 1/2 of your total gambling stash.  Finally, if you lose everything, just look at it as if it was a great vacation.  When we go on a good vacation, it usually costs us a few thousand $$$.  Just skip a vacation and that's your bankroll.  Divide it into 3,000 units and play for that size unit.  If you lose, oh well, you would have spent it on the vacation anyway.

Do you enjoy this adventure of trying to beat roulette as much as you enjoy a good vacation?  If not, give up roulette and take the vacation!

Have Fun!

GLC

P.S.  Obviously you can tweak my bank roll numbers to fit your personal life style.  They're just used as an example.

[thelaw]

Based on what you said, I'm thinking the following is the way it should turn out.  It's still a win, but not quite as much as you calculated.

L          1          -1          -1
L          2          -2          -3
L          3          -3          -6
W         4          +4         -2 (carry whole +8 win over for parlay)
W         8          +8        +6
L          1          -1          -5

It works well with your monster sequence, but I can assure you there is a set of spins that will cause it to tank just like all other progressions.  The spins you're working with have a lot of double wins which makes it work well with this idea.  But, sometimes we can go a very long time with no double wins or at least not enough to overcome all the losses.  That is until your draw down gets pretty scary. 

(A good exercise is to pick your own spins and every time you need a double win, pick a number that will cause you to lose.  Then, look at the spins you just got and see how ordinary they look.  Usually it's nothing that unusual and you realize that this can happen any time.)

If you have enough bank, scary draw downs shouldn't be that scary.  Just remember that your bank can't be more than you're willing to lose at any one trip to the casino.

If you start getting very nervous when you're getting toward the end of your session bank, you're probably playing with too few bullets.  Or they're howitzer shells when they should be 45's or even 22LR's.

Here's a scary statement.   I think you should have at least 300 units to play this progression.  I think you should have 4 more back-up banks of 300 units each.  And, I think those 1500 units should represent no more than 1/2 of your total gambling stash.  Finally, if you lose everything, just look at it as if it was a great vacation.  When we go on a good vacation, it usually costs us a few thousand $$$.  Just skip a vacation and that's your bankroll.  Divide it into 3,000 units and play for that size unit.  If you lose, oh well, you would have spent it on the vacation anyway.

Do you enjoy this adventure of trying to beat roulette as much as you enjoy a good vacation?  If not, give up roulette and take the vacation!

Have Fun!

GLC

P.S.  Obviously you can tweak my bank roll numbers to fit your personal life style.  They're just used as an example.

Hey GLC,

Sorry about the mathemagics - I wrote it out pretty quick. I tried out a couple of other sequences and progressions with the parlay idea, but no luck so far.

Although I still like the parlay philosophy, I think you're completely right on with the draw-downs-much too dangerous.

Well, onward and upward as they say!

Thanks!

                                                                   -theLaw

[GLC]

Hey GLC,

Well, onward and upward as they say!

Thanks!

                                                                   -theLaw

I like that mentality. 

GLC