d’alembert vs flat betting

I sat down with this because I was going in circles on it and D’Alembert still looks worse to me the more I stare at it. On paper it looks neat, you step it up by 1 after a loss and down by 1 after a win, but in real play it just drags you into bigger bets for no real edge. Flat betting at least stays honest.

I was running it on even chances, mostly red/black, and the bad part with D’Alembert is not one spin, its when the table goes choppy and you keep getting pulled up a level before you can come back down. I can start at $5 and suddenly I’m betting $11 or $12 just to grind for the same tiny gain. That part annoys me more than a straight losing run.

With flat betting I know what the session is, what the rollover is if I’m clearing a bonus, and I’m not messing up my balance trying to rescue a sequence that doesnt owe me anything. People say D’Alembert is safer than martingale, sure, but that doesnt make it good. It still depends on recovery and I dont like systems that need the wheel to cooperate for long enough.

Do you rate D’Alembert over flat betting for any real reason, or is it just one of those systems people like because the progression looks gentle?

I’m not asking which one beats roulette, I mean which one is less annoying to live with when you’re using actual money and table limits are there

Edit: I should of said I’m talking single zero rules, not double zero.