d'alambert question

i use the d'alambert betting strategy and had a blackjack question. let's say i bet $10, split AA and lose on both. now, i've always just bumped the next bet up to $20 based on the assumption that along the way i'll win a split and more than likely it will be at a higher amount. the question is, should i bump the next bet up to $30 instead of $20 since the previous hand lost 2 units instead of 1? Likewise, say i split 88 and double on both and loose both. so i lost 4 units on that hand. should the next bet go up 4 units? essentially, the question is, should the losing hand go up 1 unit regardless or go up the number of units lost on the previous hand? if anyone who knows how to figure out the math of this it would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks, and may the odds be ever in your favor.

Welcome to the forum.

D'Alembert and other progressive betting systems do nothing to change your chances of winning a future hand.

If it's fun for you to bet $20, bet $20.
If it's fun for you to bet $30, bet $30.

The more you bet, the more you can win or lose, but the house still has the edge.

Best of luck!

I'll give you a less mathematical and a more practical answer.

What's your bankroll and what's the table limit?

The biggest problem you'll face is a string of losses that either wiped out your bankroll and pushed you to the table limit so that you can't possibly win back what you lost.

My guess is that whatever bets you make after a losing bet you want it to be a sufficient bet so that you got more than just filling the hole if that bet wins and can walk with a nice profit.

thanks for the replies. for what it's worth, i've employed a "fail safe" mechanism. after making $50 profit I reset back to the minimum bet. i've only stumbled upon this recently so i've only tested it twice, but i'm 2 for 2 on earning $500, knock on wood, so hopefully i can continue to test this strategy. if anything it has forced me to know exactly how many chips i have on the table to the dollar. always changing and adapting my game is pretty cool.

Quote: keithhill78

thanks for the replies. for what it's worth, i've employed a "fail safe" mechanism. after making $50 profit I reset back to the minimum bet. i've only stumbled upon this recently so i've only tested it twice, but i'm 2 for 2 on earning $500, knock on wood, so hopefully i can continue to test this strategy. if anything it has forced me to know exactly how many chips i have on the table to the dollar. always changing and adapting my game is pretty cool.
link to original post

I'll save you some time. The math guys won't like this, but...

Martingale type systems do give a profit AS LONG AS you don't exhaust your bankroll AND you don't hit betting limits.

There, I said it.

I will use a bet more if I lose, bet less if I win strategy when playing deposit bonuses or loss rebates or whatever else where I’m trying to run it up or bust out. I freely admit that no betting system will overcome the house edge. But as outlined above I think there are instances where a betting system could be the right course of action.

Blackjack is hard for betting systems because of the splits and doubles. So if you were to lose a split, the next hand you would go up 2 units. If you won a double you would go down 2. Then every other blackjack you would go down 2 units.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I'll save you some time. The math guys won't like this, but...

Martingale type systems do give a profit AS LONG AS you don't exhaust your bankroll AND you don't hit betting limits.

There, I said it.
link to original post

I'm not much of a math guy, but yes.
Progressive systems let you lose big or win trying.

Don't overlook those two big hangups - your bankroll and the maximum bet.

It is shockingly easy to lose 20 hands in a row.

Quote: Dieter

It is shockingly easy to lose 20 hands in a row.
link to original post

Oh really?

According to this forum I was lying when I said I lost 20 hands in a row at blackjack.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: Dieter

It is shockingly easy to lose 20 hands in a row.
link to original post

Oh really?

According to this forum I was lying when I said I lost 20 hands in a row at blackjack.
link to original post

I'm not as math endowed as some others, and I know that the perversity of the universe trends toward maximum.

Unlikely, sure... but I'd hate to be $10*2²⁰ down and tempt fate.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: Dieter

It is shockingly easy to lose 20 hands in a row.
link to original post

Oh really?

According to this forum I was lying when I said I lost 20 hands in a row at blackjack.
link to original post

I'm not as math endowed as some others, and I know that the perversity of the universe trends toward maximum.

Unlikely, sure... but I'd hate to be $10*2²⁰ down and tempt fate.
link to original post

The other day I saw 14 in a row with no red. I don’t believe for a second that the RNG roulette games are random. I’ll spin 100x and see at least one 6-7 in a row even though the odds are hundreds to one to see 7 in a row. Yet it happens everytime. Always against me, never with me. Here is 20 in a row no even. I can’t complain about it because it was a physical wheel.

Quote: Sandybestdog

The other day I saw 14 in a row with no red. I don’t believe for a second that the RNG roulette games are random. I’ll spin 100x and see at least one 6-7 in a row even though the odds are hundreds to one to see 7 in a row. Yet it happens everytime. Always against me, never with me. Here is 20 in a row no even. I can’t complain about it because it was a physical wheel.

That's a lot of zeros, too....!

Quote: TigerWu

Quote: Sandybestdog

The other day I saw 14 in a row with no red. I don’t believe for a second that the RNG roulette games are random. I’ll spin 100x and see at least one 6-7 in a row even though the odds are hundreds to one to see 7 in a row. Yet it happens everytime. Always against me, never with me. Here is 20 in a row no even. I can’t complain about it because it was a physical wheel.

That's a lot of zeros, too....!
link to original post

well yea but if you take the zeros out it’s still 16 in a row.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I'll save you some time. The math guys won't like this, but...

Martingale type systems do give a profit AS LONG AS you don't exhaust your bankroll AND you don't hit betting limits.

There, I said it.
link to original post

I mustn't be a maths guy. Martingale type systems do not make the house edge any worse and they can make playing more fun. I personally LOVE to play a watered down D'Alembert. Wagering 5, 10, 15, 20, 20, 20 or similar into a sequence of losses, resetting to 5 on a win.

It does nothing to increase my probability of doubling my session bankroll. It means I put more action through the table in the session. More action = More exposure to the house edge = Losing faster.

The OP needs to realise that NOTHING he can do by way of safety net strategies will mitigate the house edge.

I don't think he's trying to beat the house edge... just sounds like he's trying to figure out the math on the progression.

Quote: Sandybestdog

The other day I saw 14 in a row with no red. I don’t believe for a second that the RNG roulette games are random. I’ll spin 100x and see at least one 6-7 in a row even though the odds are hundreds to one to see 7 in a row. Yet it happens everytime. Always against me, never with me. Here is 20 in a row no even. I can’t complain about it because it was a physical wheel.
link to original post

I play a lot of RNG blackjack online and also the occasional roulette. Often I use money management to help defeat various bonuses, and Martingale etc does have its place.
Money management can be used to construct a session where high probability of a small profit can be pretty assured. With the caveat that you throw massive bankroll at risk of obliteration.
As to long streaks ( against you) I can believe that some games are rigged that way. I feel I've seen more than my share of unreasonably frequent or long streaks. A full board of red or black or odd or even or alternating colours, too often terminated by a green.
They COULD have manipulated the video of that 'live reel'

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Sandybestdog

The other day I saw 14 in a row with no red. I don’t believe for a second that the RNG roulette games are random. I’ll spin 100x and see at least one 6-7 in a row even though the odds are hundreds to one to see 7 in a row. Yet it happens everytime. Always against me, never with me. Here is 20 in a row no even. I can’t complain about it because it was a physical wheel.
link to original post

I play a lot of RNG blackjack online and also the occasional roulette. Often I use money management to help defeat various bonuses, and Martingale etc does have its place.
Money management can be used to construct a session where high probability of a small profit can be pretty assured. With the caveat that you throw massive bankroll at risk of obliteration.
As to long streaks ( against you) I can believe that some games are rigged that way. I feel I've seen more than my share of unreasonably frequent or long streaks. A full board of red or black or odd or even or alternating colours, too often terminated by a green.
They COULD have manipulated the video of that 'live reel'
link to original post

In this case the actual table was right behind me. It was legit. I also play a substantial amount online. I recently added up what I could and I’m probably near $100M coin in. You play enough that you eventually think everything is rigged. I have no proof and not sure that it is rigged. Recently I calculated the coin in and out of about 10 different sites I play on. All of them had over a half million or million coin in. This would be nearly all blackjack or baccarat. What I did find very interesting is the differences in the holds. Every single one I was down on except one that I was up substantially on. That one I have done over $20m coin in and am still about $20k positive (plus bonuses). But most were down the house edge of about .6%, so acceptable. So as long as the bonuses were larger than that then I was ahead. What was interesting was that several of the sites were all part of a group of 2-3 in different states or brands. All of them performed similarly in their group. I had one group of 3 sites each holding 2-3%. I can understand if one was -5% and the other break even but that is just too suspect. This is playing the exact same software games as all the other sites that were holding .5%.

Bottom line is you can come to any conclusion after playing. There have certainly been times where it has been suspect. You say I’m going to post this online or go to the gaming commission but the bottom line is no one cares. You show what happened to you and they are just going to say it’s been tested to be fair. So you have 2 choices. Keep playing there or don’t play there. Online promos can still be beat if you stay disciplined and can handle the variance.

Quote: Sandybestdog

So you have 2 choices. Keep playing there or don’t play there. Online promos can still be beat if you stay disciplined and can handle the variance.
link to original post

Bolding mine.
So true. $;o)