the Half Labby (for EC)
This is an idea based on a traditional Labby with a large line structure, so please forgive me if this has been posted here before. I found the 65 Labby idea below on the Roulette30 forum, but they were playing it through (suicidal of course).
So the idea behind this system is to create a situation where you are ahead at some point by a small number of units (10 seems to be the sweet spot) with bets covering up to 100 Spins. You will play as if you are going to complete the Labby, but just stop when you are ahead (could end at 20 spins, or at 78 spins-so quite a range). The beauty of this system, is that is keeps the number of spins large enough to find a reasonable average.
Start by using a 50-line Labby :
l l l l l
l l l l l
l l l l l
l l l l l
l l l l l
l l l l l
l l l l l
l l l l l
l l l l l
l l l l l
------------------------------------------
Here is an example of a of the final line chart after 70 Spins :
Bankroll Needed : 100 units
Largest Draw-down : 55 units (worse than average-pretty bad run)
Win Target : 10 units
Actual Win : 11 units
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
lll
I starting testing this system, after looking for something less risky than the Labby Breaker/Supa Labby Breaker. Feel free to give an example where the system fails ( I haven't found one yet).
Bonus for Super-Conservative Play: the 65 Labby
One modification of this system is to use the 65 Labby. This is based on the "worst case scenerio" of 135 losses over 200 spins. Simply use 65 lines, and set a modest win goal (10 is very conservative) :)
theLaw
***Correction : Largest Draw-down : 15 units***
I'm sure I speak for a lot of the members when I say that we're not following what you're presenting exactly.
Could you please elaborate more or at least give us a short example?
Thanks,
GLC
Quote from: GLC on Jul 13, 07:38 PM 2014
I'm sure I speak for a lot of the members when I say that we're not following what you're presenting exactly.
Could you please elaborate more or at least give us a short example?
Thanks,
GLC
Hey GLC,
Here is a more detailed explanation :
So the major problem with the traditional Labby is that you may hit a bad streak as your lines decrease, but your bets increase, hence defeating the very reason for including more lines in a Labby, and then turning your Labby into a Martingale.
While testing the Labby strategy with different numbers of lines (3-100 lines), I noticed that I was always ahead at some point. It may be just be a dozen units, but, like clock-work, I was always ahead-sometimes more than once, just before the increasing bet size took its toll. So, if we're just trying to come out ahead after a certain number of spins, then all we have to do is just play it as a traditional Labby, but stop while you're ahead. This only works with a large number of lines, as you need a larger number of spins to reduce the short term trends and insure long-term averages. You could even extend this idea further, and use whatever number of spins that you think are necessary to create a reasonable distribution of EC bets (200, 500, 1000). Keep in mind that there is ALWAYS a Labby that works 100% of the time, we just don't know how many lines it would take to implement it safely for any given situation. This basically creates the safest Labby for this number of spins (100).
The execution is just a basic Labby, but stop when you're ahead by your win goal (here it's 10 units).
A side effect of using a large number of lines, is that you never really have a horrible losing streak, which keeps your running total within about 20 units of your starting bank, thus minimizing risk. I have seen some absolutely horrendous games that still recover within the allotted 100 spins .
Wish I could give an example, but, at 50 lines, that would take multiple pages to write out.
Does that make sense? :)
Am I understanding you to mean that you set up 50 lines of 1 unit each and as you lose, you add the losses to the 49 lines below your 1st line? This would mean that you must lose 50 times before you would need to go to a 2 unit bet. Unless, of course, you reach a new high balance before you have 50 losses.
Right? or Wrong?
Quote from: GLC on Jul 13, 08:38 PM 2014
Am I understanding you to mean that you set up 50 lines of 1 unit each and as you lose, you add the losses to the 49 lines below your 1st line? This would mean that you must lose 50 times before you would need to go to a 2 unit bet. Unless, of course, you reach a new high balance before you have 50 losses.
Right? or Wrong?
Yes on the first statement, and no on the second. (yes on third)
So you would be crossing off those wins from the top lines while adding your losses to the bottom line, so you would need 50 losses in a row to have all lines of 2s.
So, here is the example of the middle of a game :
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
ll ll
ll ll
------------------next bet 1 and win
ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
ll ll
ll ll
----------------next bet 1 and loss
ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
l ll
ll ll
ll ll
ll ll
As you can see, the single lines are almost gone, leaving the double-lines (losses).
Again, this sounds complicated, but it's just a standard 50 line Labby with stop-while-your-ahead (10 units in this case) Money Management.
Does that make sense? :)
That does make sense now.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm wondering about your statement that any deviation can be survived by this modification of the cancellation method. Are you saying that if Fripper had started out with 65 lines he would have won all of the horror session given by Bayes? If so, then this would be a major leap toward a long term winning system for an even chance game.
This could be a bonus for Blackjack players as well. I wonder how many losses are reasonably expected out of 200 hands in that game?
Thanks again for sharing your ideas with us.
I'm sure Jarabo002 will be interested in using this idea for double dozens.
GLC
Quote from: GLC on Jul 13, 09:31 PM 2014
That does make sense now.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm wondering about your statement that any deviation can be survived by this modification of the cancellation method. Are you saying that if Fripper had started out with 65 lines he would have won all of the horror session given by Bayes? If so, then this would be a major leap toward a long term winning system for an even chance game.
This could be a bonus for Blackjack players as well. I wonder how many losses are reasonably expected out of 200 hands in that game?
Thanks again for sharing your ideas with us.
I'm sure Jarabo002 will be interested in using this idea for double dozens.
GLC
Hey GLC,
I went back and found the thread that you are referring to (Fripper and Bayes), and tested the first set of numbers provided by Bayes.
Although it had a pretty nasty draw-down (-125 units) it recovered fine to end with +10 units after 120 spins. I also went ahead and finished out the 50 line Labby with just another 5 spins (125 spins total = +50 units).
49 wins (39%)/ 76 losses (61%)
largest bet : 56 (last bet which was essentially a Martingale)
file w/spins attached *please note that I bet on Black, as it was the clear loser from these spins
I can only assume that this game may have lost with a larger or smaller Labby where someone played to strict rules (ie-until Martingale sets in and you hit table limit).
Thanks for the info :)
That's actually pretty amazing.
If this labby idea were to beat all of the horror sets :xd: Oh well, let's not count our chickens before they hatch.
But, if I'm not mistaken, this should get more than a few forum members revved up. For a lot of us we had lost the scent of the Holy Gr@|l, but now that someone seems to be back on the trail the howling should become deafening.
I have been backing off from roulette, but maybe I'll hang around for just a little longer.
Cheers to you, mate,
George
Just tested a sequence from "Beat the Wheel" (claims that it is one of the worst ever recorded) :
x-marks red (the clear loser)
1
2
3x
4
5x
6
7x
8
9
10x
11
12x
13
14
15
16x
17
18
19
20
21x
22
23x
24
25
26
27
28
29x
30
31x
32x
33
34
35x
36x
37x
38x
39
40
41
42x
43
44
45x
46 x
47
48
49
50
51
52x
53
54
55 x
56
57
58x
59
60
61
62x
63
64
65x
66
67
68x
69x
70
71x
72
73
74
75x
76
77x
78
79
80x
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90x
91
92x
93
94
95 x
96
97x
98
99
100
101x
102 x
103
104 x
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114x
115
116
117x
118
119 x
120
121
122 x
123
124
125
126
127
128 x
129 x
130x
131 x
132
133
134x
135
136
137
138 x
139
140x
141
142
143 x
144
145x
146 x
147 x
148
149 x
150x
151
152
153
154 x
155 x
156
157
158x
159
160
161
162
163x
164 x
165
166
167
168 x
169
170
171x
172x
173
174 x
175x
176
177
178
179
180x
181
182
183
184 x
185
186
187 x
188
189
190
191
192x
193 x
194
195
196 x
197
198
199
200
Results :
Method : Standard 50 Line Labby (bet from first line, add to last line)
Max Draw-down : 342 units
Win : +50 units at Spin #142
Largest Bet : 130* (last 3 spins)
* I would have probably added some lines after $75 bets, as it was clear that this was a monster run, but I followed the strict rules for this test
It's possible that with a Labby of fewer or more lines, the bets could have hit a really bad sequence (like the few 9-in-a-row runs), but there are ways to deal with that by adding lines if necessary :)
Another "horror Sequence' provided by Bayes (from thread : link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=3280.45 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=3280.45))
Results (betting even) :
Method : Standard 50 Line Labby (bet from first line, add to last line)
Max Draw-down : -78 units
Win : +50 units at Spin #131
Largest Bet : 56 (last spin)
0
12
12
25
6
9
19
23
1
9
19
35
23
35
25
1
29
1
7
11
19
9
21
33
20
28
11
21
11
1
7
15
11
0
5
25
1
28
33
3
23
10
17
35
34
19
21
34
21
5
5
33
29
20
13
3
11
26
4
36
1
11
14
25
24
1
18
32
36
8
34
7
4
21
4
25
34
35
3
21
28
4
6
23
9
36
20
35
24
25
27
17
1
30
15
35
16
33
24
20
8
26
23
11
35
23
27
35
8
6
16
0
8
17
5
17
4
9
28
27
10
7
26
33
13
24
32
25
7
30
30---end +50 Units
12
17
21
22
33
15
12
19
20
17
28
13
27
9
9
6
28
25
17
19
26
29
3
36
21
13
10
27
9
26
11
25
35
13
28
31
11
23
19
18
24
13
9
20
6
18
12
14
28
33
36
32
7
31
9
31
11
13
1
0
31
8
31
0
7
35
33
11
10
If anyone has a worse set, please post them :)
The following link takes you to a progression method called the Deance method. If we combine the two I think we can come up with a progression method that can withstand very bad dispersions. We must always have a safety brake to apply if we enter a losing series after our bets have risen to high levels. The nemesis of all progressions.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=3607.msg32537#msg32537 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=3607.msg32537#msg32537)
This incorporates your idea of adding more lines when the bets get too high. Or as Deance does, add them as you go along. A compatible marriage between the two ideas may give us the best of both worlds.
GLC
Also, see the following topic I posted a while back and some of the comments.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9758.0 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9758.0)
Looks like even with this method we should have a stop loss, just in case.
Quote from: GLC on Jul 14, 07:27 PM 2014
The following link takes you to a progression method called the Deance method. If we combine the two I think we can come up with a progression method that can withstand very bad dispersions. We must always have a safety brake to apply if we enter a losing series after our bets have risen to high levels. The nemesis of all progressions.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=3607.msg32537#msg32537 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=3607.msg32537#msg32537)
This incorporates your idea of adding more lines when the bets get too high. Or as Deance does, add them as you go along. A compatible marriage between the two ideas may give us the best of both worlds.
GLC
Also, see the following topic I posted a while back and some of the comments.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9758.0 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9758.0)
Looks like even with this method we should have a stop loss, just in case.
Hey GLC,
So I am a little confused...
The Deance method is exactly what I have been using all along, but with 50 lines for up to 200 spins. When I mentioned adding lines, this was only in cases where a run of bad bets comes at the end of your Labby (3 lines or less) to keep it from becoming a Martingale. This is just adding lines, not moving bets around.
Having said that, I have now tested several of the "horror" sequences that Bayes provided, as well as the example in the last post, and I have yet to lose, or even come close to a table or Bankroll limit. After reading the discussion linked in my last post, it has become clear to me that I might be playing the Labby differently than everyone else.
Here is how I play :
-start with 50 lines of 1 unit each line (for any spins up to 200)
-bet is always based on the first line (ex-if fist line is 3, then next bet is 3 units)
-always add losses (1 unit at a time) from the last line up (this appears to be the same as the Deance method)(ex-if last 6 lines are lll,lll,lll,lll,lll,lll, then after a lost bet of 3 units-6 actually, if we're playing dozens, then the last lines would read llll,llll,llll,llll,llll,llll)
-only add new lines when you have 3 lines or less remaining to insure against Martingale (there may be one exception to this where any bets reach over $175)
-always start over if +10 units are reached at any point
I have read all of the posts that I can find regarding this, and I can't seem to find a set of numbers where this system fails.
What am I missing? :)
Quote from: thelaw on Jul 14, 08:52 PM 2014
Hey GLC,
I have read all of the posts that I can find regarding this, and I can't seem to find a set of numbers where this system fails.
What am I missing? :)
I can't see that you're missing anything.
The implications of this appear to be that we can beat roulette with math just like Fripper posted but instead of using zeros we use 1's.
Does this mean there's not a horror series possible that will require us to use a lot of additional lines to finally recover. The question becomes can we bet a larger enough unit to make it worthwhile to play this way without the cost of a total blowout breaking the bank.
I realize that most of the time we will be winning easily and the times when we'll be fighting for our lives should be not that often. If we can always reach a new profit, within 200 spins, that would be very playable.
Cheers,
GLC
Quote from: GLC on Jul 14, 09:18 PM 2014
I can't see that you're missing anything.
The implications of this appear to be that we can beat roulette with math just like Fripper posted but instead of using zeros we use 1's.
Does this mean there's not a horror series possible that will require us to use a lot of additional lines to finally recover. The question becomes can we bet a larger enough unit to make it worthwhile to play this way without the cost of a total blowout breaking the bank.
I realize that most of the time we will be winning easily and the times when we'll be fighting for our lives should be not that often. If we can always reach a new profit, within 200 spins, that would be very playable.
Cheers,
GLC
I think that $1000 bankroll would be enough to handle any sequence, as far as I can tell. Thanks GLC! :)
Update : Labby failed at bet #126 of a sequence provided by Albalaha :)
Quote from: thelaw on Jul 15, 09:51 AM 2014
Update : Labby failed at bet #126 of a sequence provided by Albalaha :)
When you say the labby failed, does that mean you went over your 1000 unit buy-in? If so, could you have recovered if you had continued with a larger buy-in? And, did you add lines to reduce bet sizes? Finally, what was the loss to win ratio. Was the spread more than 35% wins vs 65% losses?
GLC
Quote from: GLC on Jul 15, 05:21 PM 2014
When you say the labby failed, does that mean you went over your 1000 unit buy-in? If so, could you have recovered if you had continued with a larger buy-in? And, did you add lines to reduce bet sizes? Finally, what was the loss to win ratio. Was the spread more than 35% wins vs 65% losses?
GLC
Labby failed with 1-line (88 units) remaining and set to lose the next 7 bets. Unfortunately, there is no reasonable way to handle these losses.
-Martingale = bankroll and table limit
-add lines = 14 extra lines of 88 units each = breaks bankroll
The bets following these losses were not enough to recover even if you double the bankroll.
39% wins / 61% losses
I am currently in the process of running a final test with a larger Labby just for kicks. I'll let you know what happens :)
Quote from: GLC on Jul 15, 05:21 PM 2014
When you say the labby failed, does that mean you went over your 1000 unit buy-in? If so, could you have recovered if you had continued with a larger buy-in? And, did you add lines to reduce bet sizes? Finally, what was the loss to win ratio. Was the spread more than 35% wins vs 65% losses?
GLC
Update!!!The sequence that was previously a bust, has been beaten with a 65-Line Labby. Here are the results:
Win : +50 units @ spin 167
Max Draw-down : -600 units (worst I've seen by far)
Largest bet : $252 (last bet)
W/L Breakdown : 103 losses / 64 wins (62% loss/38% win)Notes : Here are the next 33 spins for reference (i've also attached a text file with the full sequence) :
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
-as you can see, there is still an enormous amount of wiggle room for the betting.
the Labby is still alive!!! :)
Updated Update - Modification
Update - Modified Labby
Just bet every other spin using a standard 33-line Labby
Results :
#1 Spin then every other
Win : +50 units @ spin 188
Max Draw-down : -210 units
Largest bet : $165 (last bet)
#2 - Spin then bet every other :
Win : +50 units @ spin 142
Max Draw-down : -30 units (yes-you read that right-30)
Largest bet : $26 (last bet)
Best I've seen so far
Thanks to Maestro for for the great modification!!! :)
What this shows us is that how the wins and losses arrive is more important than the percent of wins vs losses.
It's like a lot of system designers do when they front load the demonstration with heavy losses while you're betting small bets and then back load the demonstration with heavy wins while you're betting large amounts and coming out ahead with like 10 wins vs 27 losses. But if you were to turn it around and have 10 wins early and the losses late, you'd loose your shirt. It means nothing.
Regarding your tweak, if we take out the skipped spins and examine the wins/losses, what is the wins % vs the loss %? That could have changed a lot. It might also mean on a different series that would win relatively easy, skipping every other spin might leave us with such a high loss to win ratio that it turns it into a losing sequence.
I perceive that this is a very solid progression idea, but for sure it's not infallible. Will it stay ahead while encountering a 1,000 unit loss periodically is the question. Without a way to test by means of a computer program, I doubt that we can come to a "for sure" answer.
Thanks for all your hard work. When I get a chance, I'll play around with this also. It for sure has great promise. Maybe this final tweak suggested by Maestro (evidently) is the cat's meow.
GLC
Quote from: GLC on Jul 15, 08:32 PM 2014
What this shows us is that how the wins and losses arrive is more important than the percent of wins vs losses.
It's like a lot of system designers do when they front load the demonstration with heavy losses while you're betting small bets and then back load the demonstration with heavy wins while you're betting large amounts and coming out ahead with like 10 wins vs 27 losses. But if you were to turn it around and have 10 wins early and the losses late, you'd loose your shirt. It means nothing.
Regarding your tweak, if we take out the skipped spins and examine the wins/losses, what is the wins % vs the loss %? That could have changed a lot. It might also mean on a different series that would win relatively easy, skipping every other spin might leave us with such a high loss to win ratio that it turns it into a losing sequence.
I perceive that this is a very solid progression idea, but for sure it's not infallible. Will it stay ahead while encountering a 1,000 unit loss periodically is the question. Without a way to test by means of a computer program, I doubt that we can come to a "for sure" answer.
Thanks for all your hard work. When I get a chance, I'll play around with this also. It for sure has great promise. Maybe this final tweak suggested by Maestro (evidently) is the cat's meow.
GLC
minor correction for bets starting with #1 :
Max Draw-down : -156
Largest Bet : +216
Win : +50 at spin #189 (not 188 as before)
Here are the percentages :
#1 : 33wins/62 losses (35%/65%)
#2 : 33wins/37 losses (47%/53%)
1600 Spins challenge completed (note that I just started each new game with next spin-if someone would like to play the opposite w/l record, be my guest)
33 Standard Labby with 1/2 modification (just bet every other spin) beats #1512 Spins (stopped due to #200 spins needed for another game)
Bankroll : $1000
Win total : +550 units
Largest Bet : -$795
Max Draw-down : -$745
***note that I played this as a standard Labby as described in earlier posts with 1/2 mod - so all Martingale scenarios were played through without adjustments (adding lines)-hence the massive bet and dd from game #7***
Results :
#142----+ 50 units win end of game #2 ( game ended first starting with 2nd spin)
#189----+ 50 units win end of game #1 (starting with bet #1 and then every other spin)
#346----+50 units win end of game #3 - largest bet = $98 - dd=-$29
#505----+50 units win - end of game #4 - lb=$123 - dd=-$31
#640---+50 units win - end of game #5 - lb=$180 - dd=-$150
#817---+50 units win - end of game #6 - lb=$129 - dd=-$202
#948---+50 units win - end of game #7 - lb=$795 - dd=-$745
#1099---+50 units win - end of game #8 - lb=$15 - dd=-$16
#1224---+50 units win - end of game #9 - lb=$82 - dd= (less than 10)
#1351---+50 units win - end of game #10 - lb=$18 - dd=-(less than 10)
#1512---+50 units win - end of game #11 - lb=$50 - dd=--$30---last game (200 spins needed for game)
**detailed spins attached
Please note that I am making some adjustments to the system, so please hold off on any further comments until I post the new information (should be up in 24hrs) - Thanks! :)
Hi the law,
I know you didn't want anything posted, however, I thought the following EC selection system may be of interest used with the large line labby, as it appears to be a pretty strong EC system on it's own. I came across it while looking back on old topics, I've not been a member for that long, and have been looking through old threads for ideas, and this EC system got my interest; I cant take any credit for it, it was posted by Atlantis (thanks Atlantis :)) almost 4 years ago!!!
This is not exactly a flat bet system - but thought it might be of interest. I have used this mechanical system with some success in REAL casino simply betting the Red/Black EC. It also seems to perform well over 100 spin sessions.
Please note this DOES use a progression of 0.5 unit after each 2 consecutive losses...
To begin session: Wait for a single formation of a color to appear eg: RRRB or BBR
'========
STAGE A
'========
Bet the opposite color to the last spun result.
If WIN and level or ahead of current highest profit then restart from stage A at 1 unit stakes.
If WIN and still less than current highest profit (behind) then restart from stage A at SAME current stake level.
If LOSE go to stage B.
'=========
STAGE B
'=========
Bet the SAME color as last time ONE more time. (eg if you bet RED last time; bet RED again)
If WIN at stage B and now level or ahead of current highest profit then reduce stake to 1 unit and go back to Stage A.
If WIN at stage B but still behind current highest profit figure then keep to same stake level and go back to Stage A.
If LOSE at stage B that means you have lost twice in succession. WAIT for color sequence to end first and increase current stake by +0.5 units and resume betting at stage A at that stake level.
Recommended aim = +5 units.
A.
Hi Jimmy
Thanks for your post; It sounds very interesting.
Would it be possible to write the name of the ec system
posted by Atlantis that u are referring to; Or may post
the link as it may be useful for anyone looking
for a strong ec system.
Cheers
Chris
Hi Chris,
Here is the link, it's a 7 page thread, therefore, there are some tweaks from A's original idea as the thread evolves; I can't seem to embed the link, just cut & paste...
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=995.msg8977#msg8977 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=995.msg8977#msg8977)
There are few members whose posts/topics I've been reading up on with interest since joining, Atlantis is just of the one, there are some really good contributors on this forum, keep up the good work guys (and girls) :)
Jim
It hadn't embedded in my preview post ;D ....technology!!!
Quote from: JimmieB on Jul 17, 01:49 PM 2014
Hi the law,
I know you didn't want anything posted, however, I thought the following EC selection system may be of interest used with the large line labby, as it appears to be a pretty strong EC system on it's own. I came across it while looking back on old topics, I've not been a member for that long, and have been looking through old threads for ideas, and this EC system got my interest; I cant take any credit for it, it was posted by Atlantis (thanks Atlantis :)) almost 4 years ago!!!
This is not exactly a flat bet system - but thought it might be of interest. I have used this mechanical system with some success in REAL casino simply betting the Red/Black EC. It also seems to perform well over 100 spin sessions.
Please note this DOES use a progression of 0.5 unit after each 2 consecutive losses...
To begin session: Wait for a single formation of a color to appear eg: RRRB or BBR
'========
STAGE A
'========
Bet the opposite color to the last spun result.
If WIN and level or ahead of current highest profit then restart from stage A at 1 unit stakes.
If WIN and still less than current highest profit (behind) then restart from stage A at SAME current stake level.
If LOSE go to stage B.
'=========
STAGE B
'=========
Bet the SAME color as last time ONE more time. (eg if you bet RED last time; bet RED again)
If WIN at stage B and now level or ahead of current highest profit then reduce stake to 1 unit and go back to Stage A.
If WIN at stage B but still behind current highest profit figure then keep to same stake level and go back to Stage A.
If LOSE at stage B that means you have lost twice in succession. WAIT for color sequence to end first and increase current stake by +0.5 units and resume betting at stage A at that stake level.
Recommended aim = +5 units.
A.
Hey Jimmie,
This is an interesting idea, appears to use the "rare events" methodology. I have found this methodology to be problematic due to the eventual sequence event that will knock out your bankroll or hit table limits.
If you were going to test this, I would use a small (10 lines), medium (33 lines), and large (max 65 lines) Labby and test it with a "nightmare" sequence (I've attached the 1600 spin challenge that is used to test many systems for worst case scenario betting events) in a text file below. If you can weather the 1600 spins, then you may have a contender.
Good luck, and thanks for the interest! :)
Final Update : Failure : Labby 33 (bet every other spin)
After reviewing the spins, I found an error in the final few bets of the worst sequence (game #7) that brought the total draw-down to over $5000 busting both the bankroll and table limit. Although my error only effected the last couple of spins, and thus did not effect the outcome of the other games, it still indicates an overall failure of the system.
I subsequently tried to adjust the betting to insure against Martingale by capping bets at $100 and adding lines after each loss, but found this to ultimately be a losing strategy, as more and more lines meant imminent failure.
Thanks to Maestro, Albalaha, and GLC for their help with this system - Much appreciated!!! :)
@ Jimmy
Thanks for posting the link; Also thanks to Atanlis for sharing the system.
Cheers
Chris