You are on page 1of 19

We will discuss some ideas for a variation of the REVERSED LABOUCHERE positive

(or mixed) progression pandemting scheme, with a stop-loss handler. This

handling of the line has the benefit of telling you when you have lost too many
wins to continue, if you want to save some. Also; this system does not suffer from
the One Loss Crosses Out Two Winnings problem, that the normal REVERSED
LABOUCHERE suffers from. This system is also very flexible as the user can change
the rules of the system while using it.
| Read first our main Labouchere article |
The following text presumes that you are already familiar with the REVERSED
LABOUCHERE. It is stressed that the contents of this text is a BASIC IDEA for a
winning progression and, as it can be varied in countless ways also while using
it it is NOT COMPLETE! Anyone interested will, though, get as much information
as necessary for setting up a personal plan, using parts or all of the below. There
is also an example of a complete plan at the end of the text. Readers are
encouraged to read the full text in order to understand the necessity of some of
the basic concepts, before developing/testing own versions.

The first problem to eliminate is the One Loss Crosses Out Two Winnings
problem. That can, Im sure, be done in several ways this is one of them: Split
the net win into two parts. The benefit from this operation is, that whenever you
cross out two figures, you will cross out two parts of two won pandems, in effect
crossing out one pandem (although only by the number not units).
Where to put the two parts onto the line? As the win (the net only!) is to be split in
two parts and as the pandem is to be the sum of two figures, this will start out
with the simplest of lines:
1 1 First pandem (1 + 1) 2
Win (!) Split the winning (2) into two parts and place at the right end of the line:
1 1 1 1 Next pandem (1 + 1) 2
As we see, there is no progression in this! Obviously the two parts have to each
be bigger than the rightmost figure. But this cannot be, as the other part of the
pandem (the leftmost figure of the line) is equal to or less than the rightmost
figure. The two parts have to be put at both ends of the line.
2 2 First pandem (2 + 2) 4
Win and split into two parts 1 and 3 or whatever and put one part at each
end of the line, there is just no progress at next pandem, because it is, in fact,
the same pandem!

The problem is solved by splitting the line into two parts, using a Bar ( I ) AND
always use the rightmost figure of each part for the pandem:
2 I 2 First pandem (2 + 2) 4
Win and split into two parts. As 2 + 2 means no progression, the 4 units are split 1
+ 3:
1 2 I 2 3 Next pandem (2 + 3) 5
Next pandem is 5 as that is the sum of the rightmost figures of each part of the
line, separated by the Bar, but the split-ed win, is put at both ends of the whole
line! One thing here: The figure placed to the left must always be smaller (by 1
unit or more) than the left PART of the pandem, to achieve progression.
Supposing the next pandem (5) is won, the left part of the pandem is 2 and the
line looks like:
1 1 2 I 2 3 4 Next pandem (2 + 4) 6
In the case of a loss, the 2 and the 4 are crossed out and the line looks like:
1 1 X I 2 3 X Next pandem (1 + 3) 4
Where is the stop-loss handler?
If the last pandem (4) is won, it is to be split into two parts, of which one is to be
smaller than the left part of the pandem that is 1, as the two parts are 1 + 3. But
a zero is not to be placed on the line! The session is over! There was one loss and
then when there was a winning spin the session ended. The figure to the left of
the bar in the starting line, subtracted by one, will determine how many
sequences of losses will be accepted before ending a session after a win (if you
have a line long enough to handle the losses), as the smaller part of the
pandem will be lower for each sequence of losses. As there was a 2 to the left of
the line only one sequence of losses was allowed and the session ended when
there was the first win after the loss. This is a built-in stop-loss handler.
| Read: Is it possible to win at roulette? |
There is also a possibility to build a stop-loss handler into the line, simply by
making the Bar moveable. Suppose the Bar moves one step (not crossed-out
figure) to the right for, for example, every two winnings, a sequence (very
constructed and another line) could look like this:

Starting the line: 2 I 3 First pandem (2 + 3) 5

Win and split: 1 2 I 3 4 Next pandem (2 + 4) 6
Win and split: 1 1 2 I 3 4 5 Two wins move Bar
Bar is moved: 1 1 2 3 I 4 5 Next pandem (3 + 5) 8
Two things are achieved here: The pandem did a jump up by two units, instead
of one as previous, and also very important the smaller part of the pandem
got bigger! The rightmost figure to the left of the Bar is now 3 instead of 2,
making it possible to, if the pandem is won, put a 2 on to the left end of the line
if that is desired.

The Bar is now the stop-loss handler. As it moves to the right, it will preserve the
two leftmost figures of the line in case of losses because when all figures to the
right of the current bar are crossed out the session ends, because the next
pandem is supposed to be the sum of the rightmost figures of both ends of the
line, but there is no rightmost figure to the right of the Bar.

This handling of the Bar will allow as many losses as half of the winnings (in
numbers not units) greater part if odd plus one. (The one is determined by
half of the number of figures in the starting line greater part if odd) Note: This is
a running count meaning that the loss/win ratio is calculated of the totals,
from session start, at any point.

One alternative could be to move the Bar at first win and then wait and move it
every second. That would allow for as many losses as half of the winnings
smaller part if odd plus one. This is the difference to the above:

Starting the line: 2 I 3 First pandem (2 + 3) 5

Win and split: 1 2 I 3 4 Move Bar now
Bar is moved: 1 2 3 I 4 Next pandem (3 + 4) 7
Win and split: 1 1 2 3 I 4 6 Next pandem (3 + 6) 9
When moving the Bar already at first win, the left two figures of the line are
preserved if the second pandem should be lost. As there is only one figure to the
right of the Bar, the session ends and the bankroll is reduced by 2 units. To
compare with the above example, a loss on second spin would reduce the sum
of the line by 6 but would not end the session. Another loss would be needed for
that and then that session ends with a loss of 5 units. And a second loss in the
latter example would be a loss of 5, as another session is started but immediately
lost, thus making the total loss 7 units. In this very specific example.

The Bar can be moved at any interval, as desired, making it an option during
actual play to move it. The Bar is moving to preserve the left end of the line in
case of losses the user has to decide how many; in beforehand by setting up a
rule of when to move and/or ad hoc when playing. The number of accepted
future losses is readily seen on the line as it is the number of un-crossed figures
right of the Bar. And as that many losses crosses out the same number of figures
to the left of the line, it is very easy to see how much will be left of the session
bankroll in case of a total loss.

The preserved figures are so small! 1) Dont be greedy when gambling! 2) In

both examples above, one can see that eventually the smaller part of the
pandem will be 3 instead of 2. This opens up for options. As said before; the
figure put to the left end of the line is to be smaller than the figure to the left of
the Bar (making the left part of the pandem). But how much smaller, is for the
user to decide. In both cases above, if the last pandem is won the left part of
the pandem is 3 (3 + 5 and 3 + 6 resp) and this makes it possible to choose
pandemween adding a 1 or a 2 to the left end of the line. Adding more means
a possible saving in case of repeated losses but in case of repeated winnings it
means that the pandem will progress more moderately.

As you understand, this system can be varied forever; The length of the starting
line, the sum of the figures of the starting line and the value of each one, where
to put the Bar and when to move it Try it! Test different versions on the same
spins and maybe you find a suitable one.

A winning sequence is a sequence of wins only, ended by a loss.

To all of the above there should still be added a reasonable pandemting limit!
Jean Le Rond dAlembert (1717-1783) was a French
mathematician, physicist and and music theorist. DAlemberts formula for
obtaining solutions to the wave equation is named after him.
DAlembert progression is a money management type of roulette system that
can be found in many flavors, all having in common that you add and subtract
a fixed amount to your pandem, after a loss or a win. This can be done in a
negative way (up-as-you-lose) and in a positive (up-as-you-win), it can have
different sizes of the amounts to be added and subtracted and there can be
stop-loss instructions. The initial pandem can be different as well, depending on
the author.
The Concept
This is mainly an even chances system for Red-Black, High-low, Even-Odd. Lets
have a look at the basic idea. Your initial pandem is 5 units and after a loss you
add one unit and after a win you subtract one from the latest pandem. You
Pandem 5, Win 5, Pandem 4 (you subtract one because you won), Lose 4,
Pandem 5 (raise one unit as you lost), Lose 5, Pandem 6 (raise again as you lost
again), Win 6. Because you won, you lower the pandem to 5 units
What happened here? We had two losses (4 and 5 units) and two wins (5 and 6
units). Because we add one unit at a loss and subtract one at a win, this will give
as a result that any loss will be smaller than the previous or next win; we pandem
5 and won and then pandem 4 and lost. The loss is one unit less than the
previous win and so we have a profit of one unit and we are back to our initial
pandem. Then we pandem 5 and lost, we added one unit, pandem 6 and won.
The lost pandem was one unit less than the next won. This means, that any pair
Win/Lose (or Lose/Win) will bring you one unit in profit no matter the ORDER of
wins and losses: Pandem 5, Lose 5 (Total: -5), Pandem 6, Lose 6 (Total: -11), B 7, L
7 (-18), B 8, Win 8 (-10), B 7, W 7 (-3), B 6, W 6 (+3), and were back at our initial
pandem of 5 units. As you see here, we had three losses (5, 6, 7) and three
winnings (8, 7, 6) in the order L-L-L-W-W-W. The three pairs of W/L are first
pandem L5 / last pandem W6 (+1), L6/W7 (+1) and L7/W8 (+1) making the
positive net of three units. Try any combination of three wins and three losses
and you will have the same end result.

But this is not all! As we, in this case, had an initial pandem of 5 units, it can be
lowered in five steps and if you win that last pandem (1 unit) you have gained
an ADDITIONAL profit of 15 units (5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1)! This will happen every time
you have five wins MORE than losses.

It is ALSO possible to have a positive net result when there are MORE LOSSES
than wins, if the number of pairs (one unit profit each) are less than the added
UNITS of all un-matched losses. Maybe you have, after spin 22, ten wins and
twelve losses. You can then match ten pairs, giving you a net gain of 10 units.
If the two additional losses added VALUES are less than that you still have a
profit, if they are more you have a loss.

So, then! If every pair Win/Lose will give us a profit, as well as any excess
winnings, and we have a safety net for some excess losses if we get that; how
on Earth can this system lose?

If we use this system in, for example, a coin-flipping game where the odds are
exactly 50/50 for the two outcomes to show (yes, I know it can stand on its edge
or a bird can snatch it while its in the air, but), then you will have no
problems. As soon as the winnings are equal to the losings in numbers you will
have earned one unit for every two decisions.

Another example
In roulette, however, there is nothing like a 50/50 chance as the chance for the
ball to land on the zero or 00 is 1/37 and 2/38 resp (way more than the chance
of a coin landing on its edge or being stolen by a bird I think). This means that
you will face more losses than wins (in the long term) giving you ever increasing
pandems. And just as I described above, those un-matched losses must be
payed for from the one-unit profits you have gained from your winning
pandems. Let me show:

Pandem 5, Lose 5 (-5), B 6, L 6 (-11), B 7, W 7 (-4), B6, L 6 (-10), B 7, L 7 (-17), B 8, W

8 (-9), B 7, W 7 (-2)

Lets look at this. We have had three winnings and four losings in this series and
we need another hit to make it to our initial pandem; the next pandem is 6 and
if we win, we are down to 5 again and a new series begins. But we know as a
fact that the losings will outnumber the winnings, at least at a pace of one in 37
(or two! in 38 for a 00-wheel boycott them). So if this was your 1/37 extra loss
(supposing there is such a thing), you will need two wins to reset only (and a
gaurantee that the rest of the pandems will be equally won and lost). But if the
rest of the spins are equally won and lost, you will be stuck here at the higher-
than-the-initial pandem as you need MORE wins than losses, from now on, to get
down to the initial 5 units.

Can there be something done to change all this, then? Many a good man has
tried. None, that I know of, have had success But I will show you some

One very common way to try to solve the problem is to lower the pandem TWO
(or more!) steps after a win, in a try to drift towards zero in a higher rate than
towards the table limit. This will also mean that less winnings are required to keep
the pandem on a steadily decreasing amount two hits in five spins, to be
exact. Yes, you need only two winnings in five spins not 50% Its TRUE, but
thats a sales-persons argument. Let me re-phrase that: You need only two
winnings in five spins to keep the pandem amount decreasing whether you
like it or not!. Thats it, you dont like it as that will result in a lot of un-matched
losses when you are back to your original pandem and so you are FORCED to
gamble the 5 4 3 2 1 pandems supposing you started at 5
Positive progression (up-as-you-win) can also be shown. The idea is that a loss, as
it will come more often than a win, lowers the pandem towards zero while
winning will raise the pandem until some limit is hit; the table limit for example.

In this situation we have the exact opposite of the above: for every pair
Win/Lose we have, we LOSE exactly one unit as the losing pandem will always
be higher than the winning previous or next pandem. Here is a sequence:

B 5, W 5 (+5), B 6, W 6 (+11), B 7, L 7 (+4), B 6, L 6 (-2) and were back to 5

Two pairs W/L and we are two units down. And should we want to really risk our
money, we can pandem the 5 4 3 2 1 levels too, losing another 15 units.
The idea here is not to balance with the losses; its to find streaks of winners so
that your pandem increases and if so, youll make loads of money. The only
problem is, of course, to select the winners

Lowering the pandem TWO (or more!) units on a loss will put us, again, in a
situation opposite to the scheme described above: For only TWO losses in five
spins the pandem will decrease, AND it will give us one un-matched WINNING
is this a safety-net? No, unfortunately not as the back side is that MORE than
two losses in five spins (as will most of the time be the case) will outnumber the
winnings and that is as bad for this back-words way as for the normal way. The
fact is; you will need more winnings than losings for this system to work!

The dAlembert progression/money management plan or any variation of it is

not recommended for actual gambling. Although it is a very wide-spread and
well known roulette pandemting method it is considered not a winning system
and we have included it in our failing systems list.
First of all, my thanks to Tomla021 for sharing this 4 step pandem method with
me. Its not invincible, but it has been holding strong so far and still much
pandemter than your average system.
We start with 4 units and we use them to win 4 more units. Its a very clever
positioning of the won units that makes this a strong method. Explanation

Heres our chart. It has 4 patterns. Memorize it. Its easy to do.
1 1 1 1 = 4 units
1 2 1 1 = 5 units
1 1 2 2 = 6 units
1 1 2 3 = 7 units

Start with 4 units 1 1 1 1

Pandem the 1st unit. If it wins, put it on the 2nd unit like this 1 2 1 1.
Pandem the 1st unit. If it wins, put it on the 4th unit and move 1 unit from the 2nd
position to the 3rd position like this 1 1 2 2.
Pandem the 1st unit. If it wins, put it on the 4th position like this 1 1 2 3.
Pandem the 1st unit. If it wins, we have won 4 units. Goal accomplished.
But what if we dont win 4 times in a row?

We always pandem the leftmost position and we always try to re-create the
above positions.
We pandem the 1st unit and if we lose, we pandem the 2nd unit.
If we win on the 2nd unit we replace the 1st lost unit and we have 1 1 1 1 again.
Start over.
If we win the 1st pandem we will have 1 2 1 1. If we lose the next pandem we will
have X 2 1 1.
The leftmost number is 2 which we pandem. If we win, we will have 6 units. We
look at our chart and see what pattern is made up of 6 units. Its 1 1 2 2. Thats
our new pattern and we now pandem the leftmost position, the 1st position or 1
Note: We only recreate our chart after a win. Everything stays in place after a

If we win 2 times and then lose 2 times we will have X X 2 2. Since we just lost we
dont re-arrange the units so our next pandem is 2. A win here and we are re-
arrange our chart to 1 1 2 2.
If we lose 3 times we will havel X X X 2. We pandem the 2 and if we win we will
have 4 units and anytime we have 4 units after a win, we re-create the 4 units
pattern, 1 1 1 1.
If we have the 1 1 2 3 pattern and we lose 3 times in a row we will have X X X 3
so we pandem 3. If we win we will have 6 units so we re-create the 6 units
pattern, 1 1 2 2 and pandem the 1st 1 next.

As you can see, the way we move the units around maximizes our chances of
staying alive until we can win our 4 units.
This can be the foundation of a lot of pandemting methods to give us a
pandemter chance to walk away with a few chips.
I could stop right here. But I wont.

All we have to do is substitute this 4 unit series for a single unit. For example, lets
say were pandemting DAlembert or +1 on a loss and -1 on a win. Instead of 1
unit we substitue 4 units. We play our 4 unit pattern and if we lose, that
represents a 1 unit loss so we +1 and our next pattern is 2 2 2 2. We play it the
same way as the 1 1 1 1 and if we win, we will have won 8 units which represents
2 units -1 unit = +1 unit. Remember a unit is = to 4 units.

With a little thought, you can use this pandemting pattern with every pandem
progression there is!
Will it perform pandemter than a single unit?
Well, thats the rest of the story. And its yet to be determined.


I have tried it with a variety of progressions:

The simplest is a simple DAlembert or +1/-1


This works just fine. Its a little slow, but effective. If you want to make it more of a
grind, you can play the double Alembert

Or for those who want a more aggressive version of Alembert


A simple martingale is also very effective. I have tried it and just cant seem to
get past the 16 level.
16 16 16 16
32 32 32 32
64 64 64 64

Any time we complete a level, we will be at +4

13 13 13 13
21 21 21 21
34 34 34 34

Remember, we have to win 2 levels to fully recover. The level of our 1st win and
the level just below it.

Using the ambidex pandem method may be too complicated especially if the
pandem selection system wins on a flat pandem.
That would be too good to be true.
This may be more info than most of you are interested in, but if even one of you
can fit it into your arsenal, itll be worth it.

My criticism of the gambling literature on pandemting is it almost ignores the
academic math and finance literature. It often uses obscure references instead
of the standard authoritative results. For example, Kellys paper merely
reinterpreted the logarithmic criterion in terms of information transmission. But
the log-criterion is not due to Kelly, and is pretty obvious anyway. I wonder who
coined the term Kelly criterion anyway (probably Thorp).
I would like to help straighten out two fallacies involving limits and expectations.
In both fallacies the expectation of the limit is not equal to the limit of the
expectation. The first fallacy is that you can/cannot make money with doubling
strategies. The second is that everyone should follow the Kelly criterion.

Contrary to your article, [Mathematical Proof That Progressions Cannot

Overcome Expectation] there are positive expectation strategies that make
money pandemting on a random walk. The classic example is the martingale
doubling strategy: pandem $1, $2, $4, until you win. Any proof you cant
make money this way must rule out such strategies. Bounded wealth or
bounded borrowing capacity is one way to do this (you cant double up and
lose more than 100 pandems in a row). Finite time is another way (you wont live
long enough to lose more than 1,000,000 pandems in a row). Doobs Optional
Sampling Theorem says (roughly) if Gambler #1 has zero expectation and
Gambler #2 quits before Gambler #1 then Gambler #2 also has zero
expectation. So even if you have no predetermined pandemting limit or time
limit, the doubling strategy is prevented by stopping you when your spouse
wants to leave (perhaps after going broke playing a different game).
Some people claim limited doubling strategies work in practice because a
1/1,000,000 chance of losing $1,000,000 is worth an almost certain chance of
winning $1. They probably dont buy insurance or wear seat belts either. The
limiting case of a doubling strategy is winning $1 with certainty. But the
expected value of finite doubling strategies is still zero: the limit of the
expectation (0) is not equal to the expectation of the limit ($1).

A similar fallacy is involves logarithmic growth. With proportional pandemting

strategies, the multiplicative effect of repeated wagers translates to an additive
effect on log-wealth. With reasonable independence a central limit theorem
applies to the growth of log-wealth: your results will eventually approach your
expected hourly growth rate. Consequently a person (Kelly) who maximizes
this growth rate will eventually be richer than a person who doesnt. In the limit
Kelly is richest with certainty. But Kelly pandemting doesnt maximize
everyones expected utility because the limit of the expected utility is not the
expected utility of the limit.
One more thing: I really like Stanford Wongs definition of bankroll: the amount of
money you are willing to lose at gambling. Below are two Usenet posts
responding to Abdul Jalib. The Samuelson article cites previous results about
optimal long-run pandemting.
. . . see Nobel Laureate Paul A. Samuelson, Why We Should Not Make Mean
Log Of Wealth Big Though Years To Act Are Long Journal of Banking and
Finance, 1979, v3(4), 305-308.
My blackjack references incorrectly apply Kelly pandemting to an artificially
defined bankroll, instead of applying it to total wealth. If you are a real card
counter with log utility who owns a house, you should often pandem thousands
of dollars per hand.

With independent sequential gambles, it is optimal to pandem a fixed fraction

of wealth for power utility functions of the form U(W) = (W^a-1)/a, for a > 1. This
approaches ln(W) as the the coefficient a gets small. Log-utility is the only
myopic utility function that pandems a fixed fraction of W with dependent
sequential gambles. For example, sequential hands are slightly negatively
correlated in blackjack. If you lose the current hand, you will probably have a
bigger advantage on the next hand. This effect is too slight to be practical, but
so is the advantage of card counting with $5 chips.

[response by Abdul]
Thats not the issue for me at all. The issue
for me is the purely mathematical question of whether Kelly pandemting
is the best for an idealized gambling game (say, biased coin tossing)
and whether log utility is the One True Utility Function. The question
has nothing to do with blackjack .
Im not all that well versed in utility theory, so I am not sure
my position is correct, and Im looking for you and others
to point out the flaws. Thus far, I dont see a big problem
with my assertions, at least if one lives forever, but
Im still not completely convinced myself. The point others
brought up about being able to beat Kelly for a particular
utility function if you break the fixed fraction assumption are
familiar to me and I dont see it as a strong counterargument.
The point about pandem-it-all with linear utility being superior
is flawed; after an infinite number of pandems, Kelly will prevail.
It would probably be worth digging up Professor Covers proof.

Dear Abdul:
Despite your many correct contributions on blackjack, you are wrong on this
issue. I am a finance professor, and am familiar with Covers article in
_Mathematical Finance_ volume 1, issue 1. Paul Samuelson is also pretty familiar
with utility theory. :-).
You believe a common fallacy that that everyone should maximize the Kelly
criterion because a Kelly pandemtor will eventually be richer than a non-Kelly
pandemtor. This fallacy often involves incorrect application of limits. You cant
just say that an immortal Kelly pandemtor will become infinitely rich, because
there are many investment strategies that will also become infinitely rich. The
only way to compare strategies is to use a finite horizon and then take limits.

If I maximize the expected square-root of wealth and you maximize expected

log of wealth, then after 10 years you will be richer 90% of the time. But so what,
because I will be _much_ richer the remaining 10% of the time. After 20 years,
you will be richer 99% of the time, but I will be fantastically richer the remaining
1% of the time. Its not enough for your conservative log utility function, but it
make my square-root utility higher in expectation.

Conversely, an investor who maximizes utility U(W) = -1/W will be slightly poorer
than you 99% of the time, but will be insured against your biggest losses 1% of
the time. We all get infinitely rich, but we get infinite (expected) utility at
different rates.

The goal is to maximize the mean utility of wealth, not the median. If we
maximized the median, then all (monotonic) utility functions would be
equivalent. If that were the case, then Von Neumann and Morganstern would
not have invented them!

There are two essential points.

The first is blackjack guys should cite mathematicians and economists more. The
martingale results are in textbooks on stochastic processes (including Doobs
Optional Sampling Theorem). Economists Von Neumann and Morgenstern
invented expected utility and Paul Samuelson cites authoritative work from the
first issue of the Journal of Financial Economics on long-run investment strategy.
Cover and Kelly are not appropriate references except as illustrations of
The second point is the limit of the expectation is not the expectation of the limit.
Martingale doubling or Kelly strategies are good if you can gamble literally
forever. But they are not necessarily good if you can gamble for a long time.

Kim Lee
P.S.: Von Neuman and Morgansterns expected utility theory doesnt assume a
utility function. It merely assumes axioms about choice under uncertainty. The
axioms are sufficient to derive a utility function. For example, transitivity says if
you prefer gamble A to gamble B, and gamble B to gamble C, then you will
prefer gamble A to gamble C. The crucial axiom is that preferences are linear in
probability. If one lottery ticket is worth a dollar then two lottery tickets are worth
two dollars. But a lottery ticket with a double prize would be worth less.
'Due-column Pandemting' (also: 'due column pandemting') is a type of fixed-profit pandemting
strategy whereby a pandemtor increases the amount he wagers on a single proposition after each
successive loss. According to this system, the pandemtor determines a target profit before he begins
pandemting. Then he increases his pandem on propositions following a loss in such a way that a win
will recover the sum of all amounts he lost from his preceding pandems plus gain him his
predetermined profit.[1]
While similar to both the Martingale and Labouchere strategies, "Due-column pandemting" differs
from other like pandemting systems in that it accounts for the odds variance in
successive parimutuel propositions.[2] Still, it is often used interchangeably with the casino
gambling term "progression system", which refers to several similar pandemting systems typically
employed at casino gaming tables.[1]

System Explanation[edit]
Due-column wagering is considered a fixed-profit system because the due-column pandemtor
determines his desired profit before he begins pandemting. However, whereas with percentage-
based money-management systems the pandemtor varies his pandems as a percentage of his
bankroll, with a series of Due-column pandems he pandems the amount necessary to make his
desired profit plus the total amount necessary to recuperate what he has lost in all previous
Supposedly pandemting this way ensures that if the pandemtor correctly calls a single race at any
point in the series he will have profited and can cease pandemting or begin a new series.
Proponents of the system argue that the probability of experiencing ten consecutive losses if the
pandemtor is an average, 33 percent handicapper is 1.82 percent. Consequently, they conclude, a
Due-column pandemtor has a given probability of profiting from slightly more than 98 percent of all
10-race series. And, they therefore believe, a Due-column pandemtor will win the product of his
designated profit times the expected percentage of wins per the number of series played; or,
assuming the pandemtor's desired profit is $100, he will win about $9,800 per 100 series played.[5]
The coining of "Due-column" is due to pandemtors' creating charts to track their pandems. A typical
Due-column chart is as follows:

Race Due Odds Pandem Result

1 $3.00 3:2 $2.00 Lost

2 $8.00 7:5 $6.00 Lost

3 $17.00 7:5 $12.00 Lost

4 $32.00 6:5 $27.00 Lost

5 $62.00 6:5 $52.00 Lost

6 $117.00 7:5 $84.00 Lost

7 $204.00 4:5 $255.00 Lost

8 $462.00 1:1 $462.00 Won

Mathematical Analysis[edit]
There are several problems with the assumptions that Due-column pandemtors make, not the least
of which is that the mathematical basis for the system is flawed. Assuming a pandemtor in any
series of horse races is a 33 percent handicapper with an average mutuel of $5.00. Such a
pandemtor's mathematical expectation can be expressed as follows:[5]
E(x) = .33 <--> ($1.50) - .67 = -$.175
According to this analysis, the average pandemtor's mathematical expectation would not provide a
profit, but a loss because his expectation is a negative gain every pandem. As a result, the
pandemtor's playing the Due-column system will only multiply his losses over time. After 10 losses
given the expression above, for instance, the pandemtor would average a loss of $1.75, thus making
an upward-sloping expectation impossible.
Theoretically, the solution to this flaw in the Due-column system is for the pandemtor to consistently
handicap and have a mutuel above the average rates. If, for example, a pandemtor had a handicap
of 35 percent and mutuel of $6 his expectation could be expressed as follows:
E(x) = .35 x (2) - .65 = .05
This above-average pandemtor would then have a positive expected gain of 5 percent or $.05 every
race. Still, should that pandemtor attempt to apply the Due-column system to increase his gains he
will run into a second problem: Diminishing returns.[citation needed]
The pandemtor would run into diminishing returns because, as seen in the example Due-column
chart above, the pandems he must make increase exponentially compared to each preceding
pandem with each successive loss. Because of the nature of parimutuel pandemting, then, the
pandemtor's larger wagers will depress his payout odds. As a result, the pandemtor's real expected
return for the session will deflate far below his original target profit.
Furthermore, in horse racing no single horse runs more than one race. So, though jockeys might ride
more than one race, each race is arguably an "independent event" and the Due-column pandemtor
will therefore run afoul of the Law of Independent Trials; that is, believing the outcome of each event
is significantly dependent on the outcome of the last he will commit the Gambler's Fallacy.[2][6]
Indeed, insomuch as jockeys do ride in multiple races, horse races are not entirely independent
events. The poor morale and physical enervation of a jockey who recently lost a close race
previously could undermine his ability to win the following race. But even the worst jockey will have
minimal effect on an outcome if riding a horse that performs far pandemter than the other racers.[citation

As with any series of independent propositions, then, only with trials numbering in the thousands can
a Due-column pandemtor ensure that, on average, his historical number of wins will match his
probable number of wins. Consequently, experiencing more than 10 losses in a single series is likely
to occur according to the Law of Large Numbers, and as the chart above shows, continuing to play
the Due-column system will require risking a bankroll proportionately far too large to wager for the
expected return.[5]
For all these reasons using the Due-column system is not only unproductive, but counterproductive.
Because of this many contemporary gambling strategists[who?] strongly advise players not to consider
it a winning strategy.