Doublet D'Alembert - Gains with added stability

[Colbster]

@GLC

George, like so many other methods, there is always a sequence that will upend the winning, be it chops, streaks, doublets, etc.  I agree that we can artificially alter the spins to maximize or minimize the strength of each.  I feel confident that triples is not the way to go because there is too much movement between shifts, too many chances for a sub-trend of doubles to move against the larger movement and us not have a way of identifying it or responding.

I do think now that there is real merit to playing the doubles relative to playing the original D'Alembert that can be found in the bankroll protection end of the discussion.  They both were up together, down together, or flat together.  Single D'Alembert both won and lost more in each instance, but the maximum bets and the maximum drawdowns were easily won by the double.  A guy like Ken laughs at the risks in favor of the potential profits, but there are a lot of us here who are more conservative.  I think this has a lot of potential staying power, not instead of the D'Alembert, but alongside it for those with less risk appetite.

[biagle]

ok and now maybe you have good bet selection idea on top of this:)

[Colbster]

@Biagle

Of the several methods that I have posted in the past few years, this has been the one with the most solid record and exciting profits.  I am going to be trying to get a spreadsheet finalized today that will implement the Double D'Alembert into the concept of dynamic differential betting.  I think there is going to be a very nice fit between the two, but we will see (as always  )

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9054.0

[GARNabby]

George, like so many other methods, there is always a sequence that will upend the winning, be it chops, streaks, doublets, etc.

W/o an edge, risk (of ruin) is 100% in every case that the losses will "catch up" to you.  You're just not simulating this properly, in the sense that taking longer to lose is actually a worse proposition.

The rest is goobledegook, but carry on anyway... it beats medication.

[Colbster]

I slapped together an Excel spreadsheet and ran 200 spins (Actually 199 - Lost a spin somewhere  ) with the Double D'Alembert combined with the Dynamic Differential betting methods.

Even/Odd
Spins 199
Bets made 172
Ending balance +71 (Which was the session maximum)
Max Drawdown 65
Max Bet 10

Evens 108
Odds 91

High/Low
Spins 199
Bets made 168
Ending balance +79 (1 unit off the session max)
Max Drawdown 32
Max Bet 9

Highs 101
Lows 98

For those of you who have read the Dynamic Differential post I linked to earlier, you would be interested to know that I did swap the progressions on the Even/Odd spreadsheet one time once the bet level indicated 11 on Even and 1 on Odd.  As expected, this disparity quickly remedied itself for nice profits.

[Colbster]

Another 200 spins from a very tiresome session.  It took every single one of the 200 spins to recover to a positive +1 on the Even/Odds.  Following the rules for the Dynamic Differential, I had to swap twice on the High/Lows.  I swapped progressions once on the Even/Odds at nearly the exact moment the imbalance shifted.  I hope to not see that again for a while  .

Even/Odds
Spins 200
Bets Made 190
Ending balance +1
Max Drawdown 111
Max Bet 15

Evens 97
Odds 103

High/Low
Spins 200
Bets Made 181
Ending balance +36 (Just 4 shy of the session max)
Max Drawdown 63
Max Bet 12

Highs 79
Lows 121

Clearly on the High/Low results, this was an extremely imbalanced session.  If you had picked correctly, you would have done well.  If not, you could have lost a bunch of money.  With the Dynamic Differential betting, you don't have too choose - the system adjusts for you and gives a positive result.

[Colbster]

Nope - the two systems I mentioned have absolutely no business being tried together.  I just played another rotten session with both of the ECs that should have been very manageable.  The two staking methods both took turns sabotaging each other and it was a bloodbath!

[ugly bob]

colbster,

It's an honest guy who can come on and say something isn't working as well as he thought!

Fair play to you. 

You are hopefully a step closer to something that does work!

[GLC]

I know some of you will think this is crazy, but my experience has shown me that moving a bet method toward smaller and smaller units or progression does well most of the time, but it always gets bogged down and winds up frustrating us to death.

I have actually had excellent results on a modified D'Alembert by making it more aggressive rather than less.  We play +1 -1 until we are betting 5 units.  Once we are bettng 5 or more units, we add 2 units after each loss and reduce 3 units after 1 win and another 2 units after a 2nd win in a row, and 1 unit after 3 or more wins in a row.  It's rare to get into a long drawn out draw down.  It does take a larger starting bank roll.  It just depends on your risk tolerance.

[teo]

Nope - the two systems I mentioned have absolutely no business being tried together.  I just played another rotten session with both of the ECs that should have been very manageable.  The two staking methods both took turns sabotaging each other and it was a bloodbath!

If you try all mentioned but chosing some other EC/suggest last 3 lines versus further 3 lines/you might find it far more balanced then clasic outside EC bets.No sabotaging here,
especially using Ibobas staking plan/larger BR/with quick returns and win goal approach.

[Skakus]

Who's Iboba?

[porkeporkeporke]

I think Iboba  = FLAT_INO

[Turner]

Who's Iboba?

FLATINO

[TwoCatSam]

Iboba is FLATman!!

[Turner]

Iboba is FLATman!!

And about 6 others.
All great blokes