D'Alembert Strategy at Test: Why this casino system burns your money. I'll show you the naked truth & better ways.
Hey, nice to see you here. Probably because you're looking for the „holy grail“. A way to cheat the casino. You googled it, maybe heard it from friends, and there it was: that sonorous name. D'Alembert. Sounds serious, almost scientific.
I know the feeling. You sit at the Table (or today rather in front of the screen), the rattling of the ball, the tension... and the desire to somehow master this damn coincidence. You want to Control. And that's where the D'Alembert strategy comes into play and whispers in your ear: „With me, you'll win slowly but surely.“
Where do we play blackjack online?
My best online casino experiences I have in the Bizzo Casino made. In my opinion, there is the BEST SELECTION at tables with live dealers, where we train for the real casino. In contrast to many other online casinos, winnings are also paid out really quickly and reliably here. That's why I can definitely recommend Bizzo!
Bizzo Casino offers numerous live blackjack tables and a fast payout of our winnings.
I would have money anywhere else win but so far I have always had good experiences with the Bizzo Casino made.
Unfortunately, I have to burst your bubble straight away. I've been in this hobby for years, I've rolled systems, I've spent long nights Tables and yes, I have also learnt the hard way. The D'Alembert strategy is one of the most seductive fallacies in the gambling world. It is the little, „sensible“ sister of the brutal Martingale strategy. But at the end of the day, it's one thing above all else: a way to methodically burn through your money.
Before I show you, Why that's the case, let's briefly clarify why people fall for it in the first place.
Wait a minute - why do some people swear by it anyway?
I want to be honest: The system feels sounds good at first. It has a few (supposed) advantages that make it so damn clever psychologically:
Our best blackjack online casinos
🔄 + 150 Free Spins
🔄 + 175 Free Spins
🔄 +150 Free Spins
🔄 + 150 Free Spins
- 📉 It seems „safer“Unlike the Martingale (where you double your bets and run exponentially into ruin), here you only increase linearly. It feels slower and more controlled.
- 📈 It promises „stability“: The idea is that with a 50% hit rate (which is what you get with red/black) you can almost have) slowly but surely come into the black. A dream for anyone who doesn't like rollercoaster rides.
- 🧠 It is super easy to learnYou don't need a calculator or a maths degree. Set a unit, +1 for a loss, -1 for a gain. Anyone can do that.
- ⚖️ It is based on a (false) idea of „equalisation“: This is the psychological Kern. „Now there must be red...“ D'Alembert is based on this longing for balance.
- 😎 It gives you the Feeling from controlAnd that is the most important one Point. You are doing something. You manage your game. You are no longer a passive gambler, but a „strategist“. (Spoiler: you're not.)
What is the D'Alembert strategy anyway? (And who was this guy?)
Imagine it's the 18th century. Wigs, powder, lots of talk about the „Enlightenment“. Jean-Baptiste le Rond d'Alembert sits in the middle of it all. A brilliant mind, no doubt about it. Mathematician, physicist, philosopher. A guy who really knew his stuff.
But even geniuses sometimes have a bad day or a blind spot. D'Alembert was fascinated by probabilities, especially when tossing coins. He put forward a theory that is known today as the „gambler's fallacy“.
His (incorrect) assumption was: If a coin has shown „heads“ ten times in a row, the probability of „tails“ on the eleventh toss is“ higher, because the universe has to „equalise“ somehow.
That's absolute rubbish.
A coin (or a roulette ball) has no memory. The probability of heads or tails is each individual The ball doesn't care what has happened in the last 10 laps.
He built his betting system on this fundamental error in thinking.
The core idea of the D'Alembert strategy:
You assume that, in the long term, the number of your profits and Losses will balance out. If you increase your stake in the event of a loss and reduce it in the event of a win, you will (so the theory goes) automatically be in the black at the end of this „equalisation“.
Sounds logical? But it isn't. It's an illusion based on a misunderstanding of statistics.
How the D'Alembert system works in practice (step by step)
Okay, let's take the devil by the horns. How do you play this thing? It really is child's play. You only need two things: a basic stake (let's call it a „unit“) and the discipline to stubbornly follow a Rule to follow.
The game is played exclusively on simple OpportunitiesRed/black, even/odd, 1-18/19-36 - everything that (almost) 50% offers you.
The rules of the D'Alembert progression:
- Set your unit, which is your basic stake. Let's say you're careful: your unit is €5. Important: This unit must be small in relation to your total budget (your „bankroll“).
- Place your first bet and always start with one unit. So you bet €5 on red.
- If you lose...... you increase your next bet by one unit.
- You have bet €5 on red and lost. Your next bet is €10 (€5 base + €5 increase).
- If you lose again, your next bet is €15.
- If you lose again, €20. And so on.
- If you win...... you reduce your next stake by one unit.
- You bet €20 and win. Great! Your next bet is now only €15.
- If you win again, it's €10.
- If you win again, it's €5.
- Your goal is to get back to your starting stake (or zero stakes, depending on the interpretation) and make a profit. If you win with a stake of €5, you are virtually back at the beginning and have made a profit in the interim balance.
That's it. That's all it is. None Doubling, no exponential growth of the Use. Only stubborn +1 / -1. It is a Flat progression.
An honest example: My night at the (simulated) roulette table
I played through the thing, of course. Not just once. I made spreadsheets, ran simulations and also tried it live (online). Let's go through a typical session.
- Bankroll (starting balance): 500 €
- Unit: 10 €
- Target: Just see what happens.
Here is a protocol of a real (simulated) run of bad luck that can happen ANYTIME:
| Litter no. | Insert | Result | Profit/loss | Current balance | Next mission |
| 1 | 10 € | Loss | -10 € | 490 € | 20 € |
| 2 | 20 € | Loss | -20 € | 470 € | 30 € |
| 3 | 30 € | Loss | -30 € | 440 € | 40 € |
| 4 | 40 € | Loss | -40 € | 400 € | 50 € |
| 5 | 50 € | Loss | -50 € | 350 € | 60 € |
Stop. Short interim balance after only five losses in a row.
Hitting the wrong colour five times in a row is absolutely normal. It happens all the time.
However, my balance has already shrunk from €500 to €350. My next stake should be €60.
...and now comes the „win“
Let's imagine that the game goes on:
| Litter no. | Insert | Result | Profit/loss | Current balance | Next mission |
| … | … | … | … | 350 € | 60 € |
| 6 | 60 € | Profit | +60 € | 410 € | 50 € |
| 7 | 50 € | Profit | +50 € | 460 € | 40 € |
| 8 | 40 € | Profit | +40 € | 500 € | 30 € |
| 9 | 30 € | Profit | +30 € | 530 € | 20 € |
| 10 | 20 € | Profit | +20 € | 550 € | 10 € |
Hey, looks great, doesn't it? I had 5 losses and 5 wins. Perfectly balanced! And my balance? €550. I'm €50 in the black!
The system works! D'Alembert is a genius!
... Wait a minute.
What I have shown you here is the Best Case. A perfect „equaliser“. 5x down, 5x up. But what happens when reality kicks in?
The cold reality: the zigzag course
In the real world it looks more like this: Loss, loss, gain, loss, gain, gain, loss, loss, loss....
The problem is: To make up for a loss of (e.g.) €50, you need several Wins in succession (first bet €50, win, then bet €40, win, etc.). But to increase your stake to €50, all you need to do is a few Losses.
The system is asymmetrical. It climbs up the „loss mountain“ faster than it comes down again.
- My Experience: You bumble around your starting value for ages. Sometimes €20 in the plus, sometimes €30 in the minus. It's a slow, tough struggle.
- The crux of the matter: And then it comes. The one losing streak. 8, 9, 10 losses in a row. And believe me, it will come.
- The result: Your stake is suddenly €100, €110, €120. Your €500 bankroll melts like ice cream in the sun. You start to panic. You reach the table limit or your personal limit. Limit. You have to stop.
- Balance sheet: Played for 5 hours, lost €500. And all that just to win €10.
The mathematical catch: Why D'Alembert MUST fail
Let's take off M. D'Alembert's wig and look at the bare maths. There are two reasons why each Betting system on easy chances fails. Two incontrovertible facts.
Reason 1: The Gambler's Fallacy
I already mentioned it above. The sphere has no memory.
If red came 10 times, the chance for black on the 11th roll is no higher. It is still ~48.6 % (with the European Roulette).
However, the D'Alembert system is based precisely on this hope. It wants losses (high stakes) to be balanced out by winnings (which then lower the stakes).
But the statistics say: „No, I don't have to.“ You can easily have 10 losses and then only 3 wins, and then 5 losses again. The „equalisation“ does not take place in one session. It (perhaps) takes place over a million throws, but by then you'll be broke.
Reason 2: The invincible final boss - The Zero
That is the real nail in the coffin. The casino is not playing fair.
If the odds in favour of red/black were exactly 50/50, most systems (including D'Alembert) would end up at zero for an infinitely long time. Boring, but not ruinous.
But there is the Zero (and for the Americans the double zero, hands off!).
The zero is neither red nor black, neither even nor odd. When the zero comes, all bets on the simple odds lose.
This gives the casino a mathematical advantage. The House advantage.
- European roulette (one zero): The house edge is 2.7 %.
- American roulette (two zeros): The house edge is 5.26 %.
What does that mean? Quite simply: for every €100 wagered at the table, the bank keeps on average 2,70 €. Always. No matter what you do.
Blockquote: Your betting system is completely irrelevant. Whether you play D'Alembert, Martingale or your granny's postcode - the house advantage of 2.7 % will eat you up at of each individual bet slowly.
You can't strategise away this house advantage. You can't outsmart it. It is a mathematical constant. D'Alembert is like trying to run up an escalator that goes down slowly. You can run (high stakes) or you can walk slowly (D'Alembert), but the staircase will go down. always downwards.
D'Alembert vs. Martingale: plague or cholera?
D'Alembert is often sold as the „safe“ alternative to the Martingale strategy. Let's compare the two for a moment, shall we?
Martingale (The Madman):
- Rule: Double your stake after every loss.
- Feeling: Pure adrenaline. You often win small amounts until you hit a losing streak that wipes you out completely.
- Risk: Extremely high. 5 losses in a row (€10, €20, €40, €80, €160) and you've already lost €310 just to win €10.
D'Alembert (The Sleepwalker):
- Rule: Increase the stake by one unit after each loss.
- Feeling: Rather boring. It ripples along. Until the losing streak comes and you realise that you're deep in the red.
- Risk: Medium. It takes longer to ruin you, but the result is the same.
My judgement:
Martingale is like bungee jumping without a rope. D'Alembert is like dying of hypothermia. It takes longer, hurts less, but the end is the same. D'Alembert is „Martingale light“ - it only prolongs the agony and disguises the ruin.
The „Reverse D'Alembert“ (Contra-D'Alembert): Better or just differently stupid?
There is of course also the reverse, the „Contra-D'Alembert“ or „Paroli-light“, if you like.
- Rule: Increase the stake by one unit after a Profit. Decrease it by one unit after a Loss.
The idea behind it: You want to „ride winning streaks“. If things go well, you bet more. If it's not going well, you withdraw.
That sounds much healthier psychologically. You maximise when luck is on your side and minimise when it's gone.
The problem: Again... the ball has no memory. There are no „winning streaks“ in the statistical sense. There are only clusters of random results. This system fails because of the house edge just like the original. It just feels better because you lose your money while being „careful“.
For whom is this system (perhaps) still suitable?
I've been ranting a lot now. Is there any reason to use the system?
Yes, one. But it has nothing to do with winning.
If you do not recognise D'Alembert as Winning strategy, but as Money management tool the situation looks different.
Imagine you go to the casino with €100 and just want to have a fun evening.
- Option A (without system): Sometimes you bet €20, sometimes €5, sometimes €50 on the 17. 10 minutes later you're broke. Evening over.
- Option B (With D'Alembert): You set a unit of €1. You will be very, very long play. You will have stakes of €1, €2, €3. Your money will fluctuate slowly.
The D'Alembert strategy, played with a very small unit, is a fantastic way to maximise your playing time. It structures your game. It gives you a clear plan. It prevents you from placing stupid, high bets on a whim.
Suitable for:
- Players who see their budget as „maintenance costs“.
- People who want to sit at the table for as long as possible.
- Beginners who need a structure to keep them from going crazy.
Unsuitable for:
- All those who believe they can earn money with it.
My hard-hitting opinion: Why I'm staying away from it
I hate false promises. And D'Alembert is a false promise.
It pretends to be an intellectual, mathematical approach to a pure game of chance. But it's just superstition in a fancy suit.
Why don't I use it?
Because it wastes my time. It keeps me thinking I have some kind of control where there is none. I spend hours painstakingly noting and adjusting bets, only to end up with a fucking zero and the house advantage laughing up its sleeve.
It's a psychological trap. You chase losses, but in a „moderate“ way. You're stuck in the loss zone forever, hoping for the „equalising streak“ that will bring you back to zero. That's not fun. This is work. And it's unpaid work with a guaranteed loss.
Do you really want to spend your valuable free time running up an escalator that goes down? I don't.
Interactive element: Your D'Alembert reality check
Are you tempted to try it anyway? Fair enough. Do this little check before you real money is used.
Checklist: Am I ready for D'Alembert?
- [ ] I understand that this system will minimise the house advantage. not beats. (Really?)
- [ ] I understand that will lose money in the long term.
- [ ] I see the money that I invest as pure Entertainment budget (like a cinema ticket).
- [ ] I have a fixed bankroll (e.g. €100) and stop when it's gone.
- [ ] My Unit is tiny in relation to the bankroll (e.g. 1% = €1 for €100).
- [ ] I expect not, to get rich, but only, longer to play.
If you can't tick all six boxes with complete conviction keep your hands off it.
Better alternatives? What really works (spoiler: it's not what you think)
Okay, so you want to play „better“. What really works?
The sad but honest answer is: Nothing. No system beats the house advantage.
But there are „smarter“ ways to play that maximise the fun and minimise the pain.
- Strict Bankroll Management.That's the be-all and end-all. Only take money with you that you don't mind losing. Set yourself a hard limit. When it's gone, go home. That's the only „strategy“ that works.
- Play „Flat Bets“, the most boring but mathematically „best“ method. Always bet the same amount. Let's say €5. Every round. This minimises your risk of going bankrupt quickly due to a progression (like D'Alembert or Martingale). Your money lasts the longest.
- Always play European (French) roulette. Never American. The house edge is only half as high (2.7 % vs. 5.26 %). If you have the „La Partage“ rule in French roulette (you only lose half your stake on simple chances when the zero comes up), the house edge even drops to 1.35 %. THAT is the best deal you can get.
- Accept the coincidence, enjoy the show. The excitement. The adrenaline. See it for what it is: a paid entertainment programme where you sometimes win a small bonus and usually pay the full price.
Everything else is a fairy tale.
The big FAQ: Your most burning questions about the D'Alembert strategy
Here are the questions I am asked time and again. Short and sweet answers.
### What is the D'Alembert strategy?
It is a negative progression betting system for casino games. You increase your stake by one unit after a loss and reduce it by one unit after a win. The aim is to profit from a supposed „equalisation“ of winnings and losses.
### Does the D'Alembert strategy really work?
No. In the long term, it does not work to make money. It fails because of the house edge (the zero in roulette) and the fact that past results do not influence future results (gambler's fallacy).
### Is the D'Alembert strategy better than Martingale?
It is „safer“ than Martingale because the stakes increase more slowly (linearly instead of exponentially). The risk of a quick total loss is lower, but the long-term loss is just as guaranteed due to the house advantage. It's just a slower way to lose.
### Which games is the D'Alembert system suitable for?
It is typically used in games with simple odds (approx. 50/50). These are mainly roulette (red/black, even/odd), but also Baccarat (Banker/Player) or Craps (Pass/Don't Pass).
### Can I use D'Alembert in Blackjack?
Theoretically yes, but it's not ideal. With the Blackjack your chances are not always 50/50, as they depend on your decisions (hit/stand) and the Maps depend on. A betting system ignores the actual blackjack basic strategy, which can even increase your losses.
### What is the „Contra-D'Alembert“ (reverse) strategy?
This is the reverse: use to create a unit after a Profit and after a Loss lower. An attempt is made to exploit „profit streaks“. It fails for the same mathematical reasons as the original.
### Why do I lose even though I win and lose equally often?
If you play D'Alembert and have exactly 50 wins and 50 losses, you will be in the black (that's the logic behind it). The problem is that you don't win 50/50 in roulette. Because of the zero, you only win ~48.6 % of the time. This small difference eats up your profit.
### Is the D'Alembert strategy legal?
Yes, absolutely. Casinos love players who use systems. It's completely legal as it doesn't affect the house edge in any way. It just methodically gives the bank your money.
### What happens during a long losing streak?
Your stake increases linearly. After 10 losses in a row (based on €10), your next bet would be €110. This quickly eats up your bankroll, or you reach the table limit set by the casino to break this type of system.
### What is the best alternative to the D'Alembert strategy?
The best „strategy“ is not to use a progression strategy at all. Play with flat stakes (always the same amount), set yourself a tough loss limit and see gambling as paid entertainment, not a source of income.
Small glossary for casino strategists (and those who don't want to become one)
So that we can move from Equals talk.
- Bankroll: Your total budget that you have reserved for gaming. Your „play money“.
- Unit: The base amount on which your system is built (e.g. €1, €5, €10).
- House Edge: The mathematical advantage that the casino has in every game. In European roulette, this is 2.7 % through the zero.
- Progression: A betting system in which the amount of the bet depends on the result of the previous round.
- Negative progression (e.g. D'Alembert, Martingale): Increase stake after loss.
- Positive progression (e.g. Paroli, Contra-D'Alembert): Increase stake after win.
- Gambler's fallacy: The irrational belief that past random events have an influence on future events (e.g. „After 10x red must come black“).
- Flat Betting: Always place the same stake, regardless of winnings or losses.
What you should read next (if you still haven't had enough)
If the topic of „systems“ fascinates you, but you now understand that D'Alembert is rubbish, take a look at these topics:
- Martingale strategy: The fast track to ruin (analysis)
- Bankroll management: Why your budget is more important than any system
- The paroli strategy (reverse martingale): Better than the competition?
- The biggest casino myths: what's true and what's rubbish
- The psychology of gambling: Why we gamble even though we know we're going to lose
My conclusion: The D'Alembert fairy tale
So, what sticks?
The D'Alembert strategy is a fascinating piece of gambling history. It is a testament to our human desire to control chaos and find a pattern in chance. It's elegant, it's slow, and it feels smart.
But in the end it is just that: a fairy tale. A nice story that we tell ourselves so that we don't have to face the cold, hard facts: The bank always wins.
I don't use them to win. At most, I use it when I'm sitting at a €1 table with €20 and just want to watch the ball for two hours while I sip my drink. It's great for that. As a tool for making money, it's a hammer that's only designed to hit you on the fingers.
Save the money, buy yourself a good meal or invest it. But don't give it to M. D'Alembert.
My three key messages for you:
- 👎 It does not work. D'Alembert does not beat the house advantage of 2.7 %.
- 🧠 It is based on an error in thinking. The „equalisation“ (player misconception) is an illusion.
- 💸 It's just a bankroll management tool. It can help you, longer but not to play, more to win.
Stay sensible and have fun - but play smart.
