Modified D'Alembert for Even Chances

[GLC]

Just not enough posts under money management to suit me.
Here's a modified D'Alembert bet progression that has an uncanny ability to win units for you.
Played on even chance bets of all kinds.
+1 after every loss
-1 after 1st win
+1 after 2nd win
-1 after 3rd win
+1 after 4th win
-1 after 5th win  (note:  these are consecutive wins like this WWWWW not WLLWWLLLLWLLLW)
keep same pattern if needed to recover but if you need more than 5 wins you've been on a really bad losing streak.
In other words if we win 3 times in a row and we are betting 6 on our 1st win we will bet 5 on our next bet and if we win this 2nd time we will go back to 6 for our 3rd bet.
Anytime you reach a new high bank, cut bet amount in half.
Let's say you are betting 10 units and you just had a win and reached a new high bank at 80 units.  Normally you would keep alternating between 10 and 9 until you lose, but since you are at a new high, cut your bet in half to 5 units and continue the trot.
We don't reset to 1 after reaching even or +1.  Rather we keep playing the progression until we reach our win target of say 50 units.
We cut our bets in half whenever we reach a new high because if we didn't, our bet sizes would just continue to grow larger since the most we decrease our bet amount by is 1 unit.  We also cut our bet size in half if we get close to a new high bank.  This is a judgement call on your part.
In other words, if I were betting 10 units and I got to within 5 or 6 units of reaching a new high win amount, I would drop my bet size down to 5 units.  This helps keep our bets from escalating too rapidly if we happen to go into a strong losing trend just when we were about to reach a new high.
Example:
Bet 1 and lose  -1
Bet 2  and lose  -3
bet 3 and lose -6
bet 4 and lose -10
bet 5 and win -5
bet 4 and win -1
bet 5 and lose -6
bet 6 and win 0
bet 5 and win +5  this is a new high so we cut our bet in half. 2 units or 3 units. you decide.
bet 2 and win +7
bet 1 and win +8
bet 2 and win +10
bet 1 and lose +9
bet 2 and lose +6
bet 3 and lose +3
bet 4 and win +7
bet 3 and win +10
bet 4 and lose +6
bet 5 and win +11  New high so cut bet in half
bet 2 and win +13  New high so cut bet in half
bet 1 and lose +12
bet 2 and lose +10
bet 3 and win +13
bet 2 and win +15
bet 1 and lose +14
bet 2 and lose +12
bet 3 and lose +9
bet 4 and lose +5
bet 5 and lose 0
bet 6 and lose -6
bet 7 and win +1
bet 6 and win +7
bet 7 and lose 0
bet 8 and lose -8
bet 9 and lose -17
bet 10 and lose -27
bet 11 and win -16
bet 10 and win -6
bet 11 and win +5
bet 10 and lose -5
bet 11 and lose -16
bet 12 and win -4
bet 11 and win +7
bet 12 and win +19  New high so cut bet in half.
bet 6 and lose +13
bet 7 and lose +6
bet 8 and win +14
bet 7 and win +21  New high so cut bet in half
bet 3 and lose +18
bet 4 and lose +14
bet 5 and lose +9
bet 6 and win +15
bet 5 and win +20
bet 6 and win +26  New high so cut bet in half
bet 3 and win +29  New high
bet 2 and win +31
etc...
27 wins
28 losses
+31 units up
largest bet was 12 units
-27 largest drawdown
This is easy to play and very powerful.
The fact that we don't -1 unit after every win helps us to recover with fewer wins.
I know, there's a sequence that can cause us to have larger drawdowns than we like and have to bet larger bet sizes than we like, but with a decent bank to start with, you should be able to weather most series.
Pick a stop-loss in case of a nightmare session.
Give it a test run and you might be surprised.
GLC

[Bayes]

Nice work George. 

I've been running an experiment for the last few days, I wanted to see if I could turn a profit with no bet selection whatsoever (just betting red every spin) and a maximum stake of 10 units. The MM is very similar to what you've outlined. It was certainly a grind, but results have been good. I always try to keep in mind and act on the principle given by Stetson G. Bailey in that pdf I sent you -

"if you can't win with one loss and one win (in either order) then you can't win in the long run."

It just isn't necessary to raise the stakes beyond a certain level,  it's  best to use "cut-back" or "half-bet" rather than keep increasing. It's not hard to see why if you think about it. If your stake is 10 units and you increase by 1 unit on a loss, your leverage is only 10 %, but if you're betting 5 units and increase by 1 unit, it's 20% (and same for the regressive bets after wins).  So the less the increase or decrease is in proportion to the total amount staked, the less effective is the ratchet effect. The alternative is to increase stakes in progression style, but that's dangerous and means that you lose more to the house edge, as well as increasing the risk of hitting the house limits.  It's not about chasing losses, it's the interaction between wins and losses which gives you your profits. Most standard progressions either rely on winning more bets than not (positive progressions), which just isn't possible over time, or on not losing in the next X spins (negative progressions) which is very risky, not to mention stressful. This is the safe and sane 3rd way.

[Tomla021]

Interesting twist on this George... D'alembert , 123456 hybrid sort off

[GLC]

Interesting twist on this George... D'alembert , 123456 hybrid sort off

I'm not sure it's any better than just staying at the same unit size after a win and only increase your unit size when you lose.   We only decrease our unit size by 50% when we reach a new high bank or when we get close to a new high.
In other words, if we're betting 25 units and we get down to -10 units, it's seems crazy to me to keep betting 25 units.  You could go into a losing streak and minus 25 plus a pop gets pretty steep.
I think it's better to drop back to betting 5 or 6 units.  A couple of wins gets to even or up and if it goes into a tailspin it's manageable.
GLC

[Tomla021]

always agree in cutting back and avoiding the big units to clear out. Use the low unit bets to make your units

[Big EZ]

I have been testing this progression out recently and I am liking it alot!!

Just ran this session 90/195 and ended with a profit of +37

[GLC]

I have been testing this progression out recently and I am liking it a lot!!

Just ran this session 90/195 and ended with a profit of +37

I too am especially fond of this method Big EZ.

Thanks for bringing it back to our attention.

[kingaries1986]

Hello GLC. I tried to send you a message but it didnt go through. I had a really quick question to ask about this method are there any exact rules and/or betting progression that need to be followed??

[GLC]

Hello GLC. I tried to send you a message but it didnt go through. I had a really quick question to ask about this method are there any exact rules and/or betting progression that need to be followed??

'86,  I'm always honored to have a new member make his first post asking about a money management method I've posted.

The answer to your question is in my 1st post.  It contains all the rules to play the progression.

I just want to say that this is very close in aggressiveness to the "Forced Win Progression" that has been around for a long time.  With the Forced Win Progression we increase by 1 unit each bet whether we win or lose until we reach a new high bankroll.  Then we start all over at 1 etc...

The original D'Alembert is plus one on a loss and minus one on a win.  Every lose/win nets us 1 unit.

The slowed down D'Alembert is plus one after 2 losses in a row and minus one after 2 wins in a row.  Every  lose, lose/win, win nets us 1 unit.

You can slow it down all you want.  Just increase the number of losses in a row before adding 1 unit to the bet and the same for wins in a row before reducing our bet by 1 unit.

Just below the Forced Win Progression is another modified D'Alembert where we add 1 unit after each loss but we stay at the same size bet after each win.  This progression I'm introducing is only slightly less aggressive.

My final point to make is that Oscar's Grind/ Pluscoup is also a modified D'Alembert.  We stay at the same bet size after a loss and add 1 unit to our bet after each win. 

We can play all of the above until we reach a new high bankroll.  The suggested method is to never bet more than necessary to reach +1 if our bet wins.  This helps, at times, us to keep our bets smaller overall.

I've wrestled with the idea of shooting for +1 on every attack vs just betting until we reach our win target.

Starting over after reaching +1 can be quite a grind at times to reach a win target of say +20 units.  Whereas, just playing the progression per the rules until we have a win that takes us to +20 can happen very quickly with a lucky sequence.  On the other hand, it can also put us deep in the hole if we have a downturn when we're betting larger bets.

There's always a trade-off between safety and aggressiveness and with either choice, you can find yourself in your grave if the loss to win ratio gets as bad as it can and often does.  That's why the most important thing you can have is:

A REALISTIC "STOP-LOSS" THAT IS WRITTEN IN STONE!

Good Luck,
GLC

[JimmieB]

Hi GLC,

In your example, should spin 10 also read "this is a new high so we cut our bet in half...", as you are now +7 BR, although, the next bet is indeed cut in half as you went from a 2 unit bet to 1 unit, and should spin 11 also read the same as you have went from a BR of +7, to +8, however, you have increased your bet from 1 unit to 2 units in this case, I realise you can't half your 1 unit bet, therefore, should this have remained at just 1 unit for spin 12???

Sorry for what is probably daft questions, I like this idea, and want to make sure I've got it right before I test/play with a stop at -20 units/+5 units per game.

Thanks
Jim

[GLC]

You know the old saying.  No question is a daft question.

Hi GLC,

In your example, should spin 10 also read "this is a new high so we cut our bet in half...", as you are now +7 BR, although, the next bet is indeed cut in half as you went from a 2 unit bet to 1 unit, (I could have made that statement.  I didn't because all you can do is drop back to 1 unit.)and should spin 11 also read the same as you have went from a BR of +7, to +8, however, you have increased your bet from 1 unit to 2 units in this case, (In this case, you do go to 2 units because you are in the midst of a winning series and since I was at 1, I chose to undulate my bets to try to maximise on the winnings.)  I realise you can't half your 1 unit bet, therefore, should this have remained at just 1 unit for spin 12???  (You can remain at 1 unit if you prefer.  Remember what I have admonished numerous times, although being new you probably haven't read it yet, no systems are set in stone.  They can all be tweaked to suit you own playing style.  All I'm pointing out here is an alternative to the basic D'Alembert.  By cutting the bet size in half, we moderate our loses if we go into a losing sequence while still keeping out bet size at a level where a continued winning series will net us a few more units before we get all the way back to 1 unit.  If we always drop back to 1 unit after reaching a new high, we take longer to reach win targets.  That's okay.  It's just what do you prefer?)

There's another way to handle this called half peak.    This is based on the fact that because we lose more bets than we win, with a strict D'Alembert, our bet size will gradually creep upwards until we are betting very large bets and still in the hole.  What is recommended is that when we reach a bet size of say 25 units, on the next win, we drop back to 12 or 13 units and continue the trot of +1 on a loss and -1 on a win.  We can still reach a new high bank, but it mitigates the effect of a heavy losing streak.  At some point in this kind of progression method, we must take a loss to keep our bets within a reasonable range.  As Bayes said, "...cutback or half-bet..." is a good safety brake to use to keep bet sizes under control.  And you can still win while using cutback or half-bet. )

Sorry for what is probably daft questions, I like this idea, and want to make sure I've got it right before I test/play with a stop at -20 units/+5 units per game.

Thanks
Jim

Any time I make statements like, "you can still win while using cutback or half-bet"  remember that I also point out that you should never consider more than 5%-10% of your winnings as actual winnings.  You will be returning at least 90% at a future time.  Expect it and you won't be so demoralized when it happens.

Cheers,
GLC

[JimmieB]

Thanks GLC,

Ref your comments regarding winning & losing, couldn't agree more, you have to be prepared for the losses, hopefully, overall the amount you win will be more than the amount you lose!!

I'm very much of the opinion to try and obtain a small amount of units per session/game, and not spend very long at the table (this is easier for me in the UK as I've got access to live online dealers). If you spend to long at the table that streak which will take away your BR, whether it be zig-zags, doublets, or whatever, will come around, I'm just hoping the short time I'm at the table the losing sequence doesn't hit....

On a side note I read your posts with great interest since joining the forun, keep up the good work

Regards
Jim

[muggins]

I'm very much of the opinion to try and obtain a small amount of units per session/game, and not spend very long at the table (this is easier for me in the UK as I've got access to live online dealers). If you spend to long at the table that streak which will take away your BR, whether it be zig-zags, doublets, or whatever, will come around, I'm just hoping the short time I'm at the table the losing sequence doesn't hit....

I haven't been playing roulette long, but this I totally agree with.  I read how so many are ahead at one point then lose it all.  Gotta time the exit point.

[Rond1nell1x]

I'm really enjoying going through all your @GLC threads.

Very interesting your ideas of progressions. It helps a lot to broaden our ideas about how to bet on roulette.

Cheers!