New System D'Alembert Variation

J

JJR

New Member
I've been getting good results with a new system I developed. It's a variation of the D'Alembert System. The change I made was simply this, I subtract 2 units after the 2nd win in a winning streak. So, if you won 6 in a row you'd and you started at 10 units you'd bet like this 10-9-7-6-5-4. Subtracting 2 units after the 2nd win. The rest of the time it's just a D'Alembert add 1 unit after a loss and subtract 1 unit after a win, except after the 2nd win in a win streak where you subtract 2 units. Let me know what you think. I don't have a Blackjack simulator so I haven't put it through alot of simulations, but I have been getting good results playing.
 
It's just as useless as all progression systems. There's no point; they will all make you lose money more quickly.
 
It sounds equally as good as the original D'Alembert System. You don't need a simulator to know what will happen. The sticky threads at the top of this forum have more info on that, and other similar, progression systems.

-Sonny-
 
The biggest difference with this system is that it keeps the betting down, by subtracting the 2 units after 2 wins in a streak, you're taking about 10 "scalps" per 100 hands. So, the betting can't really get out of control on you. The only concern I have is how much are the "scalps" going to cost me in the long run. I like playing it with Blackjack, because I think the Double downs and Splits will make up for the "scalps" I'm taking off.
 
JJR said:
The biggest difference with this system is that it keeps the betting down, by subtracting the 2 units after 2 wins in a streak, you're taking about 10 "scalps" per 100 hands. So, the betting can't really get out of control on you. The only concern I have is how much are the "scalps" going to cost me in the long run. I like playing it with Blackjack, because I think the Double downs and Splits will make up for the "scalps" I'm taking off.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by scalps, and how do DDs and Splits make up for them? You need all the DDs and Splits you can get just to beat the house edge (if you are counting)--how do they additionally play into the use of a neutral progression that does nothing to reduce the HA?
 
JJR said:
The biggest difference with this system is that it keeps the betting down, by subtracting the 2 units after 2 wins in a streak, you're taking about 10 "scalps" per 100 hands. So, the betting can't really get out of control on you. The only concern I have is how much are the "scalps" going to cost me in the long run. I like playing it with Blackjack, because I think the Double downs and Splits will make up for the "scalps" I'm taking off.
Click to expand...

Read the stickies already.

Bottom line is that you are not playing with an advantage, and you are guaranteed to lose money more quickly than just flat-betting the minimum.
 
Well by "scalps" I mean the instances where you subtract 2 units. The D'alembert, of course, would work if you could get the betting all the way back down to 1 unit. The problem with the D'alembert is that the HA causes the betting to get out of control and you at some point will not be able to return to the 1 unit bet you started with. By subtracting 2 units after 2 wins in a streak, you're able to get the progression back down to 1 unit every time. The problem is the "scalps" will cost you money off of the D'alembert, but the DD's and Blackjacks should, I would think, make up for those "scalps".
 
JJR said:
Well by "scalps" I mean the instances where you subtract 2 units. The D'alembert, of course, would work if you could get the betting all the way back down to 1 unit. The problem with the D'alembert is that the HA causes the betting to get out of control and you at some point will not be able to return to the 1 unit bet you started with. By subtracting 2 units after 2 wins in a streak, you're able to get the progression back down to 1 unit every time. The problem is the "scalps" will cost you money off of the D'alembert, but the DD's and Blackjacks should, I would think, make up for those "scalps".
Click to expand...


I just can't understand why they would?
 
Well, I think the D'alembert Variation I've developed would by itself keep the game about even. As I said before, the D'alembert would win if you could get it back to the original 1 unit bet. The HA makes it at some point impossible to return to the original 1 unit bet, but the D'Alembert is a profitable system if it returns to the original 1 unit bet. As opposed to the Martingale which with a straight 50/50 game would only break even. So, these "scalps" are just cutting into the profits of the D'Alembert System.

So, the system is keeping the game about even by itself. That's just the system betting, but by adding "bonuses" of double downs and Blackjacks, that should be enough to make the game win.
 
JJR said:
Well, I think the D'alembert Variation I've developed would by itself keep the game about even. As I said before, the D'alembert would win if you could get it back to the original 1 unit bet. The HA makes it at some point impossible to return to the original 1 unit bet, but the D'Alembert is a profitable system if it returns to the original 1 unit bet. As opposed to the Martingale which with a straight 50/50 game would only break even. So, these "scalps" are just cutting into the profits of the D'Alembert System.

So, the system is keeping the game about even by itself. That's just the system betting, but by adding "bonuses" of double downs and Blackjacks, that should be enough to make the game win.
Click to expand...
Excuse me for being skeptical, but I do not think that any betting scheme on earth can make a -EV game even, let alone a winner, with or without DDs and BJs. It's just not mathematically feasible.
 
JJR said:
Well, I think the D'alembert Variation I've developed would by itself keep the game about even. As I said before, the D'alembert would win if you could get it back to the original 1 unit bet. The HA makes it at some point impossible to return to the original 1 unit bet, but the D'Alembert is a profitable system if it returns to the original 1 unit bet. As opposed to the Martingale which with a straight 50/50 game would only break even. So, these "scalps" are just cutting into the profits of the D'Alembert System.

So, the system is keeping the game about even by itself. That's just the system betting, but by adding "bonuses" of double downs and Blackjacks, that should be enough to make the game win.
Click to expand...

Progressions do not effect EV. There are no profits in any progression. Read the stickies.
 
In older days, I used to play the D'Alembert, and, in desperate measures, trying to fight my way back to unit 1, I resorted to the following:

win -1
win double -2
win triple -3 (etc)
win bj -2
push -1

lose anything (single, doubles, triples...) +1

In the end, lost my winnings.

Back to the drawing board !
 
picasso said:
In older days, I used to play the D'Alembert, and, in desperate measures, trying to fight my way back to unit 1, I resorted to the following:

win -1
win double -2
win triple -3 (etc)
win bj -2
push -1

lose anything (single, doubles, triples...) +1

In the end, lost my winnings.

Back to the drawing board !
Click to expand...
There's no advantage gained from any progression. At best they can slow down your losing which is inevitable with a house edge.

PS--come to think of it, I'm not even sure they can do that.
 
johndoe said:
They can't. They will always accelerate losses, since you're betting more.
Click to expand...
What I was thinking was how some of them decrease the bet, but then, just flat betting at the lowest possible bet would be better than that.
 
I don't know, I'm still getting good results with this system. Has anyone else tried playing it yet?
 
With 99.99% certainty - your "Good" results will evaporate over time.

In the "end" you will lose back more than you have won. That you can bet on !

It is your type of illogical thinking that makes the casinos so very rich.

You are just another one, among (LITERALLY) millions, who imagined that they had found the "golden goose"
 
JJR said:
I've been getting good results with a new system I developed. It's a variation of the D'Alembert System. The change I made was simply this, I subtract 2 units after the 2nd win in a winning streak. So, if you won 6 in a row you'd and you started at 10 units you'd bet like this 10-9-7-6-5-4. Subtracting 2 units after the 2nd win. The rest of the time it's just a D'Alembert add 1 unit after a loss and subtract 1 unit after a win, except after the 2nd win in a win streak where you subtract 2 units. Let me know what you think. I don't have a Blackjack simulator so I haven't put it through alot of simulations, but I have been getting good results playing.
Click to expand...

Worthless. The various progression schemes are only useful for cover or to shape the distribution of your results. (or maybe for entertainment value).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top