Hi All,
I am sure you are all aware of the book 13 againts the bank and the system used in the book The Revese Labouchere System. I am curious to here if anyone has put this system to test as Norman Leigh did and what results you had. I reed the book many years ago and have lost it and i am egar to give it ago I remember that the fact the table minimums are too high nowa days to make the system profitable, Does anyone know the main flaws in the system that would make it impossible to make any tidy money using it,
Thanks JP
Just play marbles.No table minimums. :yahoo:
Cant Lost all my marbles years ago trying to find a winning roulette system :girl_wacko:
Such a system is really dependent on your luck - you have to be able to catch a lot of winning streaks. The advantage is that it is a positive progression and so you can't lose it at once, but somewhat slower.
Rather than using labby, I use divisor for that - start balance/5 = 5/5 and any wins go to balance, bet 5/5=1 W, 6/5, bet 6/5=2 (rounding up) W, 8/5 and so on. Reset on balance <= 0 or balance >= target (in this case 50, should be more probably, or change as you need - adapt to game). If trends are coming, it is a goodie. It is actually another way of tracking reverse labouchere, there won't be much difference in bet sizes.
Two images:
1) good time
2) that's why it does not work
Image tells more than words...
edit: the images are for no zero RNG, so the first works so nice, I have forgotten to enable zero it in my sim software, but if you wanted to play RNG, go with a no zero one anyway
Hi M. R Ore,
Thanks for your imput, I dont quite understand your system maybe you could explain more or link to a better explanation. Also I agree that it would either be really good or really bad, If you are doing just 1 bet I. E Red, In the book there where 6 people betting on one table each person would be allocated and even bet red/black odd/even high/low. As you can imagine this would be a break evan stratergy without any streaks, But when a streak accurs on black for instance then this person will be winning while the person playing red would be losing 10 units every 2 spins but the person winning would be winning at a much faster rate than this and only risking his inital 10 unit bet soon as he reaches the table max he stops and starts again banking a nice profit. I think that they estamated that one evan chance bet would streak every six days so by doing all the even chances they would get about one streak a day.
Hope you understand my explanation.
Two players coordinating - not really that good, but it is hard to make it at least little working :) Strongly dependend on min and max bet and how many values are inbetween, also reset condition is crucial and hard to describe. My test does not have differential betting - they both bet while zero can hit in.
During your test what was the min and max bet set at?
I don't know already, just changed it several times. Because it does not work, I just change a value to see what it does. There is a need for a more intelligent progression which holds a part of winnings, I have tried to find that several times but failed.
formula for hypotethical intelligent positive progression:
bet = (balance * F(balance))/divisor
0< F(balance) <=1
right values for a session starting balance, starting divisor and F(...) might be a key for a better management system. What I want to do is that if it is winning losing, something is tracking it and F returns values to either hold more bet or play aggresively. Usually there is a hill, then valley, then hill and so on. If F detected start of a valley, it would hold some winnings...
Also session target should change dynamically acording to global balance and last sessions result...
I have a copy of the original book on my hard drive. If anybody would like a copy, drop me a PM.
Another posibility for a positive progression. Start with a some sum, for example
reset: sum=1, starting sum=1
Each spin:
bet = round_up(sum/starting_sum)
on W: update: sum = sum + round_up(amount_won*k)
on L: update: sum = sum - bet
if sum <= 0: reset
k is a variable 0...1, for k=0 it's flat betting, for k=1 it's anti-martingale, for k in between like 0.25,0.5,0.75 it is a positive labby-like progression.
Image in attachement shows a "good time" with k=0.15, that means that we rebet 15% of won bet, rest is saved. To make the system better, it could be possible to change k according to our needs an changing it's properties on a scale flat betting <---> reverse-labby <---> anti-martingale. This system is probably "better" than reverse labby, but also difficult to use. Just a basis for some better system I think.
Above system played on a dozen with start sum=2 (used as a divisor actually), k=0.6 (40% is pocketed). What is actually good about this positive progression is that it does not need stoploss. If a positive trend appears, it will pocket side winnings until sum is 0 and then it resets. With k it can be changed to any positive progression for any chance. Starting sum used as a divisor also affects aggressivity, and maybe it could be just changed to some independent divisor value. BTW zero was enabled and it showed profit after 10000 spins, but it only works if there is enough trends. I would lower k if there are no trends, there is a space for a development.
Still probably best suited for even chacnes - higher ones would need some more magic to work how I want them to if a positive trend appears.
image: starting sum=1, k=0.3
10k rng spins+zero enabled
+detail to see how it pocket won money in order to not give all wins back to casino immediately
starting sum=1, k=0.01 (only 1% is rebet, or 1 unit, whatever is bigger)
note those are only winning strikes utilized, if there is no edge, it loses badly - it is a positive progression
Mr ore thanks for your input I kinda get where your coming from I work in a casino so have seen all kinda betting systems. All of witch ruin the people using them it's quite sad watching someone slowly disintigrate over a period of months. But thats gambling for you, what i wanted to touch on with this post the fact that his gang where people from normal walks of life with little or no gaming experiance. They where trained to use a system and if you have read the book you will know it worked pritty well with great sucsess. And im sure it would have been used again in latter years thats why i started this post to try and find out if anyone has tried and what sucsess if any they had.
JP
JP, there was someone a few years ago who came up with a kind of modified version of the reverse labby. I will look for it and will post it up here if I can find it.
I thought it was a production from 'mr oops' and I was right, lol.
Anyway I have to mention that this is a copyright (2000) but he gives permission to distribute it as long as I mention the copyright. (shit, where did 11 years of my life go :D)
This was one of his ideas for using a reverse labby if you were wanting to bet 2 dozens or columns. I have never really looked at it in detail but methods I have developed in my blog may compliment something like this.
ok, here it is:
SOLUTION? SO, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? The problem is that you, when betting on two dozens or columns at the same time and one of them hits, you will only get half of your total bet in net gain and, as this winning is going to be "put onto the line", you will get an ever decreasing line. Try it!
THIS IS MY SOLUTION: Set the bank-roll to 20 units for a session and write a line looking like this:
2 - 4 - 6 - 8
As you can see, all figures are even. This is because we are going to bet two bets at the same time, so we have to split the bet into two parts. To make this an automatic task, we avoid all un-even figures...
Now, the first bet will be (add 2 + 8} 10 units split into two parts = 5 units for each dozen (or column). Suppose we win. The bet was 2 times 5 and one bet was lost and one bet won twice its value, returning only 15 units! That is 5 unit in profit. The way I see it, there is no place on the line for a figure "5". So, I'll quite simply note it on the paper and bet the same bet a second time.
Suppose we lose this bet. It was made out of 2 + 8 so we cross them out and the line looks like:
X - 4 - 6 - X
Remember the noted "5"? The next bet will also be (add 4 + 6) 10 units - 2 bets of 5 units each. This time we win and we win 5 units. Now, there was another "5" noted so we add them together getting 10 which we put on the line:
X - 4 - 6 - X - 10
The next bet is (add 4 + 10) 14 making it 7 units on each dozen/column and we win 7 units and we NOTE it only and bet a second 2 times 7 bet. We lose and cross out:
X - X - 6 - X - X
...and a noted "7". We bet 6 (2 x 3) and win 3 units. Now there are two ways to go and I prefer one way but cannot say that one is the better. The first way is direct: Add the noted "7" to the won 3 making a total of 10 to put onto the line, making it look like:
X - X - 6 - X - X- 10
The next bet would then be 2 times 8 (6 + 10)... and you must add or subtract one if you get an odd figure...
The second way, my preferred way, is to add equal figures only, like the two 5s earlier. So we note the "3". One reason: There will automatically be only even figures to put onto the line. A second reason will be revealed as we play a few spins more with the line looking like:
X - X - 6 - X - X
and we have a "7" and a "3" noted. So the next bet is a second 2 times 3 units and we win 3 units. We now have two equal figures to add - the noted "3" and the won, making a total of 6 and, when put onto the line, it looks like this: X - X - 6 - X - X- 6
We still have a "7" noted! The next bet is 2 times 6 and we lose and we cross the 6s out, completing the session. We lost the bankroll on the sequence: W - L - W - W - L - W - W - L. NO! And this is the second reason, why I prefer this way: We had the "7" noted; it's a win that has not been used so, in fact, we lost "only" 13 units. This means that sometimes the line can be completely crossed out but there are more than 20 units noted and the net result is actually positive.
Nothing is ever fixed in stone. What's to say a multilevel reverse labby which can cater for betting between 18-24 numbers could not achieve some great results. I have a few ideas for this which I am going to spend some time looking into. Ideally it would require a method that throws up some good win streaks. You could even run several at the same time looking to catch the winning streak.
It would be great if we could come up with a way to revive this idea and make it work in todays casino environment.
cheers.
Nice charts Mr Ore
Hi all. Two observations to proffer.
1. With the reverse Labby you need to win more than 66% of your EC bets to win so not something to rely on.
2. On days when you can do no wrong and lady luck is sitting in your top pocket why not try it. Keep adding your wins to the line until you hit the house limit. Then walk - you will have made a bundle!
Agabus