Alright, jumping into this D'Alembert discussion with some thoughts. I’ve been messing with this system for a while, mostly in sports betting, and I’ll say it’s got its strengths, but it’s not a magic bullet. For those unfamiliar, D'Alembert is all about slow and steady progression—raise your bet by one unit after a loss, drop it by one after a win. It’s less aggressive than Martingale, which is great for not blowing your bankroll in one bad night, but as blukas89 pointed out, it can feel like you’re crawling when you’re trying to recover from a rough streak.
I’ve tested it extensively on NBA and soccer, and here’s my take. The system works best when you’re betting on markets with close to even odds, like moneyline bets on competitive games or over/under totals where the line is tight. NBA is tricky because the volatility in high-stakes games, like playoff matchups, can screw with the flat progression. You’re often tempted to chase losses faster when a favorite tanks or an underdog pulls an upset. That’s where discipline is non-negotiable. If you start making bigger jumps on underdog bets, like blukas89 mentioned, you’re essentially abandoning D'Alembert’s core logic and turning it into a hybrid system. I’ve tried this, and it’s a gamble. It can pay off if you hit a streak of underdog wins—say, betting on a +150 dog with a 2-unit jump after a loss—but it also spikes your risk. One or two misses, and you’re digging a deeper hole than the system’s meant to handle.
My experience? Stick to a strict unit size and cap your progression. For example, I set a max of 5 units on any bet, no matter how many losses I’m down. This keeps the system’s slow grind intact while protecting you from those “I’ll just bet big to recover” moments. I ran D'Alembert on NBA regular-season games last year, focusing on totals (over/under) with odds between -110 and -120. Out of 100 bets, I ended up with a 4% profit—not life-changing, but consistent. The key was avoiding the urge to tweak the system mid-stride. When I tried it on soccer, betting on draw outcomes in low-scoring leagues like Serie A, the results were spottier. Draws are harder to predict, and the variance killed the slow recovery.
To blukas89’s point about underdog bets, I’d say test it with a small bankroll first. Maybe allocate 10% of your funds to experiment with 1.5x or 2x unit jumps on +130 to +200 underdogs. Track at least 50 bets to see if the variance balances out. My hunch is you’ll either hit big or crash fast—it’s not really D'Alembert anymore at that point, though. If anyone’s got data on this kind of tweak, I’d love to hear it. Also, anyone tried D'Alembert on live betting? I’m curious if adjusting bets mid-game, like on shifting over/under lines, changes the dynamic.
