Half Labby (w/65 Labby bonus)

[thelaw]

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

[thelaw]

***Correction : Largest Draw-down : 15 units***

[GLC]

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

[thelaw]

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?

[GLC]

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?

[thelaw]

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?

[GLC]

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

[thelaw]

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

[GLC]

That's actually pretty amazing. 

If this labby idea were to beat all of the horror sets    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

[thelaw]

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

[thelaw]

Another "horror Sequence' provided by Bayes (from thread : 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

[GLC]

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

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

Looks like even with this method we should have a stop loss, just in case.

[thelaw]

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

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

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?

[GLC]

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

[thelaw]

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!