An 18th-century French mathematician thought he had devised the perfect system. Jean Le Rond d’Alembert reasoned that when two events have an equal chance of happening - as with the two hands at baccarat in a casino - if one begins to happen more frequently than the other, the alternative event must eventually begin to occur more often in order to even up the odds, or achieve equilibrium. Nature always seeks equilibrium, d’Alembert believed.
In the d’ Alembert system, the player bets one unit on either the Banker or Player. When he loses, he increases his bet by one unit. When he wins, he decreases his bet by one unit. Bets will vary according to size, but eventually he will find himself betting one unit, and equilibrium will be achieved. Losses will be balanced by an equal number of wins. The problem with this system is that it is simply hogwash. Nature does not try to achieve equilibrium. Baccarat has no memory, so the result of one hand or a series of hands does not affect the next one or the next series. Just because the Banker hand won ten in a row doesn’t mean that the Player hand will win ten in a row. In fact, the difference could even get larger. In the long run, the ratio of Banker hands to Player hands may get smaller, but the difference between the number of hands could actually increase in the short run.

OK, so you see the d’Alembert system is destined to lose. So why not do the exact opposite? Since the Martingale system will lose, let’s try the reverse. This can be applied to many systems but, unfOltunately, the logic doesn’t hold up. You see, any system is irrelevant. Players lose because the loss is only a combination of the amount bet with the house advantage. It’s impossible to defeat the house advantage. In the long run, the player would lose just as much money by betting one unit at a time, as he would by utilizing one of the above systems. A system may only alter the size and times of the wins or losses; for instance, many small losses and a few large wins.