What Is the D'Alembert Betting System?
Definition and Basic Principle
The D'Alembert system is a negative progression betting strategy where you increase your stake by one unit after a loss and decrease it by one unit after a win. Unlike aggressive systems that double bets, the D'Alembert takes a conservative approach by adjusting stakes in linear increments. This makes it one of the most popular betting systems among both casino players and sports bettors seeking a middle ground between flat betting and high-risk progression strategies.
The system operates on the principle of betting units. A unit is your base bet amount—the foundation upon which all subsequent bets are calculated. If you start with a £10 unit, your next bet after a loss becomes £20, then £30, and so on. When you win, you reverse the progression, stepping back down by one unit each time.
The fundamental appeal of the D'Alembert system lies in its apparent simplicity and lower volatility compared to systems like Martingale. It promises to recover losses gradually while maintaining smaller bankroll swings, making it seem accessible to recreational bettors with modest budgets.
The Core Mechanism Explained
Understanding how the D'Alembert system actually works requires breaking down its mechanics step by step. The system relies on three core rules:
Rule 1: Start with a base unit. This is your initial bet amount. If you have a £100 bankroll, your unit might be £2–£5. A £1,000 bankroll might warrant £20–£50 units. The unit size should represent a small percentage of your total bankroll to survive inevitable losing streaks.
Rule 2: Increase by one unit after a loss. If your first bet (one unit) loses, your next bet becomes two units. If that loses, the next is three units. You continue this progression upward until you record a win.
Rule 3: Decrease by one unit after a win. Once you win a bet, you move back down the progression ladder. If you were betting three units and win, your next bet is two units. If you win again, it's back to one unit.
Example sequence with £10 units:
Bet 1: £10 (lose) → Bet 2: £20 (lose) → Bet 3: £30 (win) → Bet 4: £20 (win) → Bet 5: £10 (lose) → Bet 6: £20 (win)
The system also includes important constraints: you never go below your base unit, and if you reach your profit goal, you stop playing.
| Bet Number | Stake | Outcome | Running Profit/Loss |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | £10 | Loss | -£10 |
| 2 | £20 | Loss | -£30 |
| 3 | £30 | Win | £0 |
| 4 | £20 | Win | £20 |
| 5 | £10 | Loss | £10 |
| 6 | £20 | Win | £30 |
This simple progression is what makes D'Alembert attractive to bettors: it's easy to track, doesn't require doubling your stakes, and produces steady gains during balanced win-loss sequences.
Who Was Jean Baptiste Le Rond D'Alembert and Why Did He Create This System?
The Mathematician and His Era
Jean Baptiste Le Rond D'Alembert (1717–1783) was an 18th-century French mathematician, philosopher, and scientist who achieved prominence during the Enlightenment. Born as the illegitimate son of a salon hostess and a military officer, D'Alembert rose from humble beginnings to become one of Europe's most influential intellectual figures.
His most famous contribution to history was co-editing the Encyclopédie (Encyclopedia), a massive collaborative project that aimed to compile all human knowledge. Alongside Denis Diderot, D'Alembert helped shape this revolutionary work, which challenged religious orthodoxy and promoted scientific thinking across Europe. Beyond the Encyclopédie, he made significant contributions to mathematics, physics, and philosophy, particularly in the study of mechanics and vibrating systems.
| Year | Achievement |
|---|---|
| 1717 | Born in Paris |
| 1741 | Elected to French Academy of Sciences |
| 1746 | Published work on dynamics and mechanics |
| 1751 | Co-founded Encyclopédie with Diderot |
| 1765 | Appointed Perpetual Secretary of French Academy |
| 1783 | Died in Paris |
The Mathematical Premise Behind the System
D'Alembert developed his betting system based on a flawed but intuitive principle he called the Law of Equilibrium. This principle assumes that over a long series of events with roughly equal probability (like coin tosses or even-money bets), wins and losses will eventually balance out. His reasoning was elegant in its simplicity: if you increase your bets during losing streaks and decrease them during winning streaks, your larger bets will occur when you're more likely to win, generating profit.
The mathematical formula underlying the D'Alembert system is:
Net Win = W - D × (D + 1) / 2
Where:
- W = Total number of wins
- D = The difference between losses and wins (losses minus wins)
For example, if you achieve 22 wins and 28 losses (D = 6), your net win would be: 22 - (6 × 7 / 2) = 22 - 21 = 1 unit of profit.
This formula reveals a crucial insight: the D'Alembert system can indeed generate profit even when losses outnumber wins, provided the disparity isn't too large. A player can have up to 6 more losses than wins and still show a profit. However, this mathematical property is both the system's greatest appeal and its fundamental flaw, as we'll explore later.
How Does the D'Alembert System Work in Practice?
Step-by-Step Walkthrough
To truly understand the D'Alembert system, let's walk through a complete betting sequence. Imagine you're betting on red or black in roulette, with a base unit of £10.
Scenario: A Mixed Winning and Losing Sequence
| Bet | Stake | Outcome | Payout | Running Profit/Loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | £10 | Loss | -£10 | -£10 |
| 2 | £20 | Loss | -£20 | -£30 |
| 3 | £30 | Loss | -£30 | -£60 |
| 4 | £40 | Win | +£40 | -£20 |
| 5 | £30 | Win | +£30 | +£10 |
| 6 | £20 | Loss | -£20 | -£10 |
| 7 | £30 | Win | +£30 | +£20 |
| 8 | £20 | Win | +£20 | +£40 |
| 9 | £10 | Win | +£10 | +£50 |
Notice how the system guides you through the sequence. The three consecutive losses push you up to £40 stakes, but the subsequent wins bring you back down. By the end, despite experiencing 4 losses and 5 wins, you've generated a £50 profit. This is the system's promise: steady, manageable progression.
The Mathematical Formula Explained
The D'Alembert formula works because of how it distributes bet sizes across wins and losses. When you're in a losing streak, your bets are small (£10, £20, £30). When you finally start winning, your bets are larger (£40, £50), so your wins generate bigger payouts. Conversely, when you're winning, your bets shrink back down.
The Wizard of Odds research provides comprehensive data on this principle. Here's a sample of win/loss combinations and their outcomes:
| Wins | Losses | Net Profit |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 13 | 4 units |
| 15 | 19 | 5 units |
| 20 | 25 | 5 units |
| 22 | 28 | 1 unit |
| 25 | 31 | 4 units |
| 30 | 37 | 2 units |
The pattern is clear: as long as losses don't exceed wins by more than about 6–8 units, the system produces a profit. This mathematical property is real and verifiable. However, it's also deeply misleading, as we'll examine in the section on why the system fails.
Unit Sizing and Bankroll Management
Choosing the correct unit size is critical for the D'Alembert system. Too large, and you risk rapid bankroll depletion. Too small, and your profits are negligible relative to your time investment.
Recommended unit sizing:
- Bankroll of £100: Units of £2–£5 (2–5% of bankroll)
- Bankroll of £500: Units of £10–£25 (2–5% of bankroll)
- Bankroll of £1,000: Units of £20–£50 (2–5% of bankroll)
- Bankroll of £5,000: Units of £100–£250 (2–5% of bankroll)
The 2–5% rule ensures that even a sustained losing streak won't wipe out your entire bankroll before you can recover. If you're betting units larger than 5% of your bankroll, you're taking on excessive risk that negates the D'Alembert system's conservative appeal.
Additionally, you should set a maximum bet limit before you start. If your progression would require you to bet more than 20% of your remaining bankroll on a single bet, reduce the unit size or stop playing. This prevents the exponential bet growth that characterizes losing streaks.
Where Can You Apply the D'Alembert System?
Casino Games (Roulette, Blackjack, Baccarat)
The D'Alembert system is most effective in games with even-money bets—wagers that pay 1:1 odds. In roulette, these include red/black, odd/even, and high/low bets. Each of these has approximately 48.65% win probability on a European wheel (due to the green zero), which is close enough to 50/50 for the system's assumptions to feel reasonable.
Blackjack also offers even-money opportunities, particularly when betting on the player's hand against the dealer. Similarly, baccarat's banker and player bets are nearly even-money propositions (with slight house advantages).
The D'Alembert system's appeal in these games is that it smooths out the natural variance. Instead of flat betting (same stake every hand), you're adjusting stakes based on recent outcomes, which creates the illusion of control and responsiveness to game conditions.
Sports Betting Applications
In sports betting, the D'Alembert system can theoretically be applied to any bet with approximately 50/50 odds. Examples include:
- Over/Under bets in football, basketball, or tennis (total points, goals, or games)
- Spread betting in American football or basketball (betting against the point spread)
- Match odds in tennis or badminton where two evenly matched players compete
- Correct score bets in sports with limited possible outcomes
The critical requirement is that the bets must be approximately even-money propositions. Betting on a heavy favorite (e.g., -300 odds) violates the system's assumptions, as does betting on a heavy underdog. The system only makes theoretical sense when both outcomes have near-equal probability.
Games Where D'Alembert Doesn't Work
The D'Alembert system is unsuitable for:
- Single-outcome bets (e.g., "Will Team A win?") where you can't apply even-money logic
- High-variance games like slot machines or lottery bets
- Bets with large house edges (e.g., proposition bets in craps)
- Parlays or accumulators where you're compounding multiple bets
In these scenarios, the system's mathematical assumptions break down entirely, and you're simply increasing your stakes during losing streaks without any mathematical justification.
What Are the Advantages of Using the D'Alembert System?
Lower Risk Than Aggressive Systems
The most significant advantage of the D'Alembert system is its conservative progression. Compared to Martingale, which doubles bets after each loss, D'Alembert increases bets by only one unit. This difference is profound:
Martingale progression (£10 base unit): £10 → £20 → £40 → £80 → £160 → £320 → £640
D'Alembert progression (£10 base unit): £10 → £20 → £30 → £40 → £50 → £60 → £70
After just 7 losses, Martingale requires a £640 bet to recover, while D'Alembert only needs £70. This means D'Alembert is far more sustainable for bettors with limited bankrolls and allows for longer play sessions without risking catastrophic losses.
The lower volatility also means fewer dramatic swings in your bankroll. You're less likely to experience the heart-stopping moment of needing a massive bet to recover losses, which can lead to poor decision-making and emotional betting.
Profitability in Moderately Losing Streaks
The D'Alembert system's mathematical formula allows it to generate profit even when losses outnumber wins. As we showed earlier, you can have 6 more losses than wins and still show a net profit. This is a genuine mathematical property that distinguishes it from flat betting.
For example, in a 50-bet sequence with 22 wins and 28 losses (6 more losses), the D'Alembert system produces a 1-unit profit, whereas flat betting would show a 6-unit loss. This advantage is real and verifiable through simulation.
However, this advantage comes with a critical caveat: it only applies when the disparity between wins and losses is small. Once losses significantly exceed wins (more than 8–10 units), the system's advantage disappears entirely, and you're facing massive losses.
Why Doesn't the D'Alembert System Work? The Critical Flaws
The Gambler's Fallacy and Independent Events
The fundamental flaw in the D'Alembert system is that it's based on the Gambler's Fallacy—the belief that past outcomes influence future probability. D'Alembert reasoned that after a loss, you're "due" for a win, so increasing your bet would capitalize on this supposed shift in probability. This logic is incorrect.
Every bet, coin toss, or roulette spin is an independent event. The outcome of one bet has zero causal relationship to the next. If you flip a coin and get tails, the next flip is still a 50/50 proposition between heads and tails. The coin has no memory. The fact that you lost your last bet does not make you more likely to win the next one.
In sports betting, this fallacy manifests as: "The Patriots didn't cover the spread yesterday, so they're more likely to cover today." This is false. Each game is independent. Yesterday's result doesn't change today's matchup, odds, or probability.
The D'Alembert system exploits this psychological bias by encouraging you to increase bets after losses, which feels intuitively correct but is mathematically baseless.
The House Edge Problem
Here's the mathematical reality that no betting system can escape: every bet in a casino or against a sportsbook has a negative expected value for the bettor. Roulette has a 2.7% house edge (on European wheels). Most sportsbooks have a 4–5% vig (vigorish, or commission). Blackjack has a 0.5–2% house edge depending on strategy.
This negative expectation means that over time, you will lose money. No betting system—not D'Alembert, not Martingale, not any other progression—can overcome this fundamental mathematical truth. Betting systems can only rearrange how you distribute your losses across different bet sizes. They cannot eliminate the losses themselves.
Think of it this way: if you flip a biased coin that lands heads 48% of the time and tails 52% of the time, no betting progression will make you profitable. You could bet £10 on heads every time (flat betting), or increase your bets after losses (D'Alembert), or double your bets (Martingale). Regardless of your betting system, you'll lose money over the long run because the underlying proposition is unfavorable.
The D'Alembert system creates the illusion of profitability by occasionally producing winning sessions, but these short-term wins are statistical noise around a long-term losing trend.
Losing Streaks and Bankroll Destruction
While the D'Alembert system is more conservative than Martingale, it still suffers from catastrophic loss potential during extended losing streaks. Losing streaks are a natural part of gambling—they happen to everyone, and they happen more often than most bettors expect.
Consider a 10-loss streak with a £10 base unit:
£10 + £20 + £30 + £40 + £50 + £60 + £70 + £80 + £90 + £100 = £550 total loss
If your unit size is £20 instead of £10, the same 10-loss streak costs £1,100. If you're betting with a £500 bankroll and units of £25, a 10-loss streak ($250 total) represents half your bankroll gone.
The probability of a 10-loss streak is roughly 1 in 1,024 for a 50/50 proposition. While not common, it's not rare either—if you bet 100 times per day, you'd expect to encounter a 10-loss streak roughly once per week. And longer streaks (12, 15, 20 losses) are possible, though increasingly rare.
The D'Alembert system doesn't protect you from these streaks; it merely makes them less severe than Martingale would.
The Illusion of Control
Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the D'Alembert system is the illusion of control it creates. By adjusting your bets based on recent outcomes, you feel like you're responding intelligently to game conditions. You feel like you're "beating the system" when you win a few bets in a row and step down your stakes.
This illusion is reinforced by:
- Confirmation bias: You remember your winning sessions vividly and forget your losing ones
- Selective memory: You recall the times the system "worked" and ignore the times it failed spectacularly
- Short-term variance: All gambling involves randomness, so you will have winning sessions. The system gets credit for wins that would have happened anyway
In reality, the D'Alembert system is simply redistributing your bets across different stake levels. It's not generating any mathematical edge; it's just changing when you place larger or smaller bets. Over thousands of bets, this redistribution doesn't matter—the house edge grinds you down regardless.
How Does the D'Alembert System Compare to Other Betting Systems?
D'Alembert vs Martingale System
Both D'Alembert and Martingale are negative progression systems—they increase bets after losses. However, they differ dramatically in aggressiveness and risk.
| Factor | D'Alembert | Martingale |
|---|---|---|
| Progression Rate | +1 unit per loss | ×2 per loss |
| After 5 Losses | £50 stake | £160 stake |
| Bankroll Required | Moderate | Massive |
| Volatility | Low-to-moderate | Extreme |
| Psychological Impact | Manageable | High stress |
| Probability of Ruin | Moderate | Very high |
Martingale doubles your bet after each loss, which means a 7-loss streak requires a £640 bet to recover. D'Alembert only requires £70. This makes D'Alembert far more accessible to recreational bettors, but it also means D'Alembert recovers losses more slowly.
Both systems fail for the same reason: they cannot overcome the house edge. However, Martingale fails faster and more catastrophically, while D'Alembert fails slower and more gradually.
D'Alembert vs Fibonacci System
The Fibonacci system uses the famous mathematical sequence (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34...) to determine bet sizes. After a loss, you move forward in the sequence. After a win, you move back two steps.
D'Alembert progression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8... Fibonacci progression: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34...
Fibonacci escalates faster than D'Alembert (especially after the first few bets), making it more aggressive and requiring a larger bankroll. However, Fibonacci has some mathematical properties that make it slightly less risky than Martingale, though still riskier than D'Alembert.
Like all negative progression systems, Fibonacci cannot overcome the house edge and will lose money over time.
D'Alembert vs Oscar's Grind
Oscar's Grind is a positive progression system—the opposite of D'Alembert. You increase bets after wins and decrease them after losses. The goal is to win one unit per cycle.
| Factor | D'Alembert (Negative) | Oscar's Grind (Positive) |
|---|---|---|
| When to Increase Bets | After losses | After wins |
| Philosophy | Chase losses | Press winners |
| Psychological Appeal | Recover quickly | Capitalize on momentum |
| Long-term Result | Loses to house edge | Loses to house edge |
Both systems fail for the same fundamental reason: neither can overcome negative expected value. However, Oscar's Grind might feel slightly better psychologically because you're increasing bets when you're winning, which feels more natural than chasing losses.
D'Alembert vs Labouchere System
The Labouchere system (also called the "cancellation system") is more complex. You write down a sequence of numbers (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4), and your bet is the sum of the first and last numbers. After a win, you cross off those numbers. After a loss, you add the bet amount to the end of the sequence.
Labouchere is significantly more complex than D'Alembert and often escalates faster. It's also more difficult to track without pen and paper, making it impractical for many betting situations. Like all negative progression systems, it fails to overcome the house edge.
What Does the Research Say About the D'Alembert System?
Simulation Results and Statistical Analysis
The Wizard of Odds conducted extensive computer simulations of the D'Alembert system across various casino games and bankroll sizes. The results are illuminating:
The simulations tested the system on games like baccarat (betting on the player), with bankrolls of 10, 25, 50, 100, and 250 units. The goal was to win 1 unit (equal to the initial bet size).
Key findings:
-
Smaller bankrolls have lower success rates: A 10-unit bankroll has roughly a 40% success rate (achieving the 1-unit goal before losing the bankroll). A 250-unit bankroll has roughly a 95% success rate.
-
When the system fails, losses are severe: The average loss when the system fails is often 5–10 units, despite the "conservative" nature of the progression.
-
Session length varies wildly: Some sessions end in 5 bets; others require 100+ bets. This unpredictability makes bankroll planning difficult.
-
The system doesn't overcome the house edge: Even in successful sessions, the total profit is small relative to the time and risk invested.
These simulations confirm what the mathematics predicts: the D'Alembert system is a losing proposition over the long run, despite occasional winning sessions.
Long-Term Expected Value
Over thousands of bets, the law of large numbers ensures that the house edge dominates. Your expected loss per bet is:
Expected Loss = Bet Size × House Edge
For roulette with a 2.7% house edge, if you average £30 per bet over 1,000 bets, your expected loss is:
1,000 bets × £30 average stake × 2.7% = £810 expected loss
No betting progression changes this calculation. Whether you bet flat £30 every time or use D'Alembert to vary your stakes, your expected loss remains roughly the same. The D'Alembert system might change when you lose (by concentrating losses in certain bets), but it doesn't change how much you lose overall.
Common Misconceptions About the D'Alembert System
"The System Guarantees Profit"
This is the most dangerous misconception. No betting system guarantees profit when the underlying proposition has a negative expected value. The D'Alembert system might produce profit in some sessions, but this is due to short-term luck, not mathematical superiority.
If you play long enough, the house edge will grind you down. You might win £100 in your first 50 bets, but over 5,000 bets, you'll lose money. The system doesn't change the fundamental mathematics.
"You'll Recover Losses Faster"
D'Alembert recovers losses faster than flat betting, but slower than Martingale. However, "faster" doesn't mean "fast enough to overcome the house edge." You might recover a £100 loss in 10 bets using D'Alembert, but over 1,000 bets, the house edge will have cost you more than £100 in expected value.
The system rearranges your losses across different bet sizes, but it doesn't eliminate them.
"It Works Better in Certain Conditions"
Some bettors believe the D'Alembert system works better when applied to "hot" games (games with recent winners) or "cold" games (games with recent losers). This is pure superstition. Each bet is independent, so recent outcomes have no predictive power.
No conditions make a negative expectation positive. The system fails equally in all circumstances.
Should You Use the D'Alembert System? Final Verdict
When D'Alembert Might Be Acceptable
If you understand that the D'Alembert system is a losing proposition and you're betting purely for entertainment value, it might be acceptable as a way to structure your gambling session. The system does reduce volatility compared to flat betting or Martingale, so you might enjoy longer play sessions with smaller swings.
However, this is only acceptable if:
-
You can afford to lose everything you bet. Never use the D'Alembert system with money you need for bills, rent, or essentials.
-
You set strict loss limits. Decide in advance how much you're willing to lose and walk away when you hit that limit.
-
You understand it's entertainment, not income. Treat your betting budget like you'd treat a movie ticket—money spent for entertainment, not an investment.
-
You practice responsible gambling. Set time limits, never chase losses, and seek help if you feel gambling is becoming compulsive.
Better Alternatives for Serious Bettors
If your goal is to make money, the D'Alembert system is not the answer. Better approaches include:
Flat betting with value identification: Rather than using a progression system, identify bets with positive expected value (where your assessment of probability differs favorably from the odds offered) and bet a consistent percentage of your bankroll on those bets.
Bankroll management without progression: Use a fixed percentage of your bankroll per bet (e.g., 1–2% per bet) without any progression system. This approach has the advantage of being mathematically sound and psychologically sustainable.
Game selection: Play games with lower house edges (blackjack with basic strategy, video poker with optimal play) rather than high house edge games (roulette, slots).
Avoiding betting altogether: If you cannot consistently identify bets with positive expected value, the mathematically optimal strategy is not to bet at all.
Frequently Asked Questions About the D'Alembert System
What is the D'Alembert system?
The D'Alembert system is a negative progression betting strategy where you increase your stake by one unit after a loss and decrease it by one unit after a win. It's based on the flawed assumption that wins and losses will eventually balance out, allowing you to profit by betting larger amounts during losing streaks. The system is named after 18th-century French mathematician Jean Baptiste Le Rond D'Alembert, though there's no evidence he actually created it.
How does the D'Alembert system work?
The system operates using betting units. You define a base unit (e.g., £10) and start betting that amount. After each loss, you increase your next bet by one unit (£10 → £20 → £30). After each win, you decrease your next bet by one unit (£30 → £20 → £10). The system assumes that when you eventually win, you'll be betting larger amounts, generating bigger profits to offset previous losses.
Where did the D'Alembert system originate?
The system is named after Jean Baptiste Le Rond D'Alembert (1717–1783), an 18th-century French mathematician, philosopher, and scientist. D'Alembert was famous for co-editing the Encyclopédie and making contributions to mathematics and physics. However, historians debate whether D'Alembert actually developed this betting system or whether it was simply named after him posthumously.
How is the D'Alembert system different from Martingale?
Both are negative progression systems that increase bets after losses, but D'Alembert is far more conservative. Martingale doubles your bet after each loss, while D'Alembert only increases by one unit. After 5 losses, Martingale requires a £160 bet (with £10 units), while D'Alembert only requires £50. This makes D'Alembert more suitable for bettors with limited bankrolls, though both systems ultimately fail to overcome the house edge.
Can the D'Alembert system work in sports betting?
Technically, yes—you can apply the system to any bet with approximately 50/50 odds, such as spread bets or over/under markets. However, the system is still based on flawed logic (the Gambler's Fallacy) and cannot overcome the sportsbook's built-in margin (vigorish). Over time, you'll lose money regardless of which betting system you use.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the D'Alembert system?
Advantages: Lower volatility than Martingale, longer play sessions, ability to show profit even with more losses than wins (in small disparities), and psychological appeal of a simple progression system.
Disadvantages: Based on the Gambler's Fallacy, cannot overcome the house edge, requires large bankrolls to survive extended losing streaks, and creates an illusion of control that leads to poor decision-making.
What is the D'Alembert system based on?
The D'Alembert system is based on the "Law of Equilibrium"—the flawed assumption that wins and losses will balance over time, and that by increasing bets during losses, you'll capitalize on the eventual reversal. This logic is mathematically unsound because each bet is an independent event; previous outcomes don't influence future probability.
Does the D'Alembert system overcome the house edge?
No. No betting system can overcome a negative expected value. The house edge in casinos and the vigorish in sports betting create a mathematical disadvantage that no progression system can eliminate. The D'Alembert system merely rearranges how you distribute your losses across different bet sizes; it doesn't change your overall expected loss.
What's the difference between D'Alembert and Oscar's Grind?
D'Alembert is a negative progression system (increase bets after losses), while Oscar's Grind is a positive progression system (increase bets after wins). Psychologically, Oscar's Grind might feel better because you're pressing winners, but both systems fail against negative expected value propositions.
Is the D'Alembert system better than flat betting?
In the short term, D'Alembert might produce better results than flat betting due to variance and luck. Over the long term, both approaches lose money at approximately the same rate because both face the same house edge. D'Alembert might reduce volatility, which some bettors prefer, but it doesn't improve your expected value.
Should I use the D'Alembert system for gambling?
Only if you understand that it's a losing proposition and you're betting purely for entertainment. If your goal is to make money, the D'Alembert system will not help you. Better approaches include identifying bets with positive expected value, using flat betting with strict bankroll management, or avoiding gambling altogether if you cannot consistently find favorable odds.