So, I've been knee-deep in video poker lately, grinding away with the D'Alembert system, and let me tell you, it’s a wild ride. The idea sounds solid on paper—adjust your bet by one unit after a loss, drop it by one after a win, and supposedly you inch toward profit while keeping things steady. But in video poker? It’s like trying to steer a boat in a storm with a paper map.
I’ve been testing this on Jacks or Better, sticking to optimal strategy for the 9/6 paytable. The logic was, if I’m making the mathematically correct holds and discards, D’Alembert should smooth out the variance, right? Well, not quite. The system assumes you’re getting a steady stream of wins and losses, but video poker doesn’t work like that. You can hit a dry spell where you’re bleeding chips on low pairs or nothing hands, and ramping up bets by one unit starts feeling like throwing coins into a void. Then, bam, you hit a full house or a flush, and you’re clawing back, but the lower bets on wins mean you’re not capitalizing as much as you’d hope.
I ran a few sessions, starting with a $1 base bet. After 200 hands, I was down about 15 units one night, then up 10 the next. The swings are real. D’Alembert keeps you disciplined, sure, but it doesn’t account for the streaks in video poker—those moments when the RNG just laughs at you. I’m starting to wonder if the system’s better suited for something like blackjack, where outcomes are more binary. In video poker, with all the partial wins (like a pair of Jacks) and the occasional big hit, it’s like the system’s trying to keep up with a game that’s playing by its own rules.
Has anyone else tried D’Alembert in video poker? I’m curious if it’s just me overthinking it or if the system’s too rigid for this game. Maybe it’s about tweaking the unit size or knowing when to walk away, but right now, it feels like I’m chasing a royal flush with a 2-7 offsuit. Thoughts?
I’ve been testing this on Jacks or Better, sticking to optimal strategy for the 9/6 paytable. The logic was, if I’m making the mathematically correct holds and discards, D’Alembert should smooth out the variance, right? Well, not quite. The system assumes you’re getting a steady stream of wins and losses, but video poker doesn’t work like that. You can hit a dry spell where you’re bleeding chips on low pairs or nothing hands, and ramping up bets by one unit starts feeling like throwing coins into a void. Then, bam, you hit a full house or a flush, and you’re clawing back, but the lower bets on wins mean you’re not capitalizing as much as you’d hope.
I ran a few sessions, starting with a $1 base bet. After 200 hands, I was down about 15 units one night, then up 10 the next. The swings are real. D’Alembert keeps you disciplined, sure, but it doesn’t account for the streaks in video poker—those moments when the RNG just laughs at you. I’m starting to wonder if the system’s better suited for something like blackjack, where outcomes are more binary. In video poker, with all the partial wins (like a pair of Jacks) and the occasional big hit, it’s like the system’s trying to keep up with a game that’s playing by its own rules.
Has anyone else tried D’Alembert in video poker? I’m curious if it’s just me overthinking it or if the system’s too rigid for this game. Maybe it’s about tweaking the unit size or knowing when to walk away, but right now, it feels like I’m chasing a royal flush with a 2-7 offsuit. Thoughts?