2. The D'Alembert Staking Plan
The D'Alembert Staking Plan combines a cunningly cautious approach with a proper appreciation of the "Law of Averages", and so stands less chance of bankrupting you!
The D'Alembert is generally regarded as a Negative Staking System of the type referred to as a Pyramid System. It works on the principle of stepping up the stake equally on each subsequent bet when losing, and stepping back down by the same amount when winning. Employed in its basic format, the stakes are raised by one unit after each losing bet and lowered by one unit after each winning bet.
In some of the D'Alembert variations, the sequence of increasing and decreasing the stakes - as well as the actual amount raised or lowered - is varied to suit the particular game and the level of Odds being offered. We wouldn't recommend that you go that route, unless you are clever enough to employ some meaningfully structured way in which to handle all the mental arithmetic involved. Instead, we recommend the KISS principle when betting, to avoid the risk of losing your mental equilibrium if the stakes start rising more than you had bargained for. Believe us when we tell you that it is easy enough to trip yourself up even when using just the standard D'Alembert!
The basic version of the D'Alembert Staking Plan was devised in an attempt to find a sure-fire way of winning in small steps (and also pulling back losses in small steps) instead of all at once (such as the Martingale Staking Plan attempts to do). Like the Martingale, it too was devised principally for use on "evens" betting such as is evidenced on roulette tables. The D'Alembert is effectively a much watered-down Martingale Staking Plan, and therefore not as dangerous to use.
The D'Alembert is premised on the assumption that over a period of time there will be a near-enough equal number of "reds" and "blacks" coming up on a roulette table, and that all you need in order to win overall is to have just one more of whatever it is you are betting on come up for you. The basic principle therefore is that, where you are betting say on the "reds", as soon as the number of "reds" exceeds the number of "blacks" and "zeroes" combined you then end that particular sequence, because a healthy profit will have been evidenced (especially on a long sequence).
The idea behind this system is quite clever and simple (although you may have to re-read it a few times to properly understand the implications): it is structured so that the NET number of "units" you will win in any FULL cycle will always be equal to the total number of "blacks" and "zeroes" that came up before the "reds" outnumbered them (or vice versa if you prefer to bet on "blacks").
However, a winning situation can occur earlier, primarily because the bet placed on a winning spin is always one unit greater than that on the previous losing spin. This situation of being in pocket before the full sequence has been completed allows you to choose to cut the session short and take a smaller win, rather than risking the chance of the session being extended and perhaps going badly.
Where betting on the reds and applying the basic version of the D'Alembert, you start each cycle's play by placing, say, £2 on the first bet. If you lose on the first spin, then the next stake is increased by £2, and so is each subsequent bet until a winning bet arrives. After each winning spin, the next stake is decreased by £2.
For example, if you were betting on "red" and the 11 spins in a particular cycle were:
black, red, black, black, red, red, black, black, red, red, red
(that is, 5 blacks and 6 reds, making one full cycle),
then the bets placed, and the outcome, would be as follows:
In the above example, note that after spins 2 and 5 you could have terminated the cycle and lost nothing. After spin 6 you could have terminated and been £4 up (as spin 7 effectively restarts the cycle). Please note, though, that the situation will change for every cycle. So, if the level of staking allows it, the way to maximise your returns is to go through a full cycle every time (meaning: make sure one more of your chosen colours has come up than an all other colours added together before terminating the cycle).
The D'Alembert Staking Plan does offer three valuable advantages over the Martingale when it comes to playing roulette:
- The stakes are not increased so rapidly, and that gives you the opportunity to stop a bad session and accept a small loss if you so choose.
- As demonstrated above, it is possible that you may find you are in credit before a session has run its full course, and this gives you the option to cut the full session short, accepting only a small win.
- There is less likelihood of you reaching the house betting limits, so even if the going gets tough and you face a long losing run, and provided that you haven't pitched the base stake too high, you will still most probably pull off the coup.
Please note that the D'Alembert is not generally applicable for ordinary Fixed Odds soccer betting, primarily because you wouldn't be offered "evens" as a return. And even if you near enough were (such as with Asian Handicap Betting), you might not have the luxury of being able to adjust your stakes up and down except on a week-by-week (and not a game-by-game) basis. This would mean that to make the returns worthwhile with soccer betting you would have to raise the base stakes considerably, which we would never recommend because you might just run into the Betting House staking "ceiling" (and that wouldn't be good money management).
Alternatively, you could go for the matches offering Long Odds, but since the probability of a win would be considerably less than 50/50, the "Law of Averages" will be playing against you, and you would be back to the disadvantages of the "Martingale", perhaps with a vengeance!