Dynamic Differential Betting

[GLC]

Just a comment.  It's one you may have already looked at and rejected.

I have had excellent results using 2 labbys bet differentially.  My idea was that if using a labby recovers 2 losses for 1 win and we use a labby on either side of an even chance bet, it would have to really get slanted to one side to lose.  This is indeed the case.  And yes, it does occassionally get heavy on one side over the other, but not too often.

A check to stop a run-away losing streak is to stop betting on one side after say 3 or 4 losses in a row until we get 1 or 2 wins as a trigger to resume betting.

LOL,

GLC

[Colbster]

I had hoped that you would read this and weigh in eventually, as I consider you the Godfather of all things progression-related.  I had given just cursory thought to this idea, although it floated through my grey matter long enough to register.  Am I correct in thinking you would play this without any starting numbers, but rather just with the initial 1, followed by 1-1, and then 1-1-2?  As you pointed out to me on another post recently, a Labby with a 1 at the beginning operates as a de facto d'Alembert progression anyway.

I think a large strength of my idea here is that we swap the progressions when one side is really getting ahead of the other.  You are correct about the 2-losses-are-covered-by-1-win aspect of a Labby, which makes it very attractive.  If one progression gets squirly, what do you think about moving it to the other side of the differential bet to take advantage of the (at least short-term) advantage that that side holds to try to recover?

[Colbster]

Also, George, since a Labby is so good at staying at the low end, because of the 2-to-1 wins, wouldn't both progressions spend a lot of time at the low end?  The reason why I ask is I would think this would lead to the progressions essentially cancelling themselves out (1 to win, 1 to lose).  Wouldn't using Labby's end up giving us considerably fewer betting opportunities?

[GLC]

Colbster,

The way I usually play differential betting with labbys is to play any bet selection method.  Red on one side and Black on the other side.  I bet 1 unit following my bet selection method until 2 losses in a row.  In otherwords, I play follow-the-last; so if I'm having a streak of a color I will be winning each bet.  I just bet 1 unit until the color chops 2 times.  When I lose 2 in a row, I go to the labbys.  I start out with one of my labbys with a 1 and the other labby with 1 2.  Whatever my next bet location would have been will be the color with the 1 2 labby. 

Let's say we were betting a string of Reds and we had the following:

R 
R  Bet 1  +1
R  bet 1  +1
B  bet 1  -1
B  bet 1  +1
B  bet 1  +1
R  bet 1  -1
B  bet 1  -1  At this point I go into my labbys, betting them differentially.  Since my next bet should be Black for follow-the-last, I assign the 1 labby to Red and the 1 2 labby to Black.  That means I will be betting 2 on Black (3-1=2).  If Red hits, the Red labby will remain 1 and the Black labby will become 1 2 3 and my next bet will be 3 on Black (4-1=3) because the difference is toward Black.  From here we continue the labbys per normal.

Anytime a labby wins with only a single 1 for a line, I just reset another 1.  I never have a labby line without at least a 1 in it.

Once I go into the labbys, the color with the most units in it's line gets the differential bet per normal, but there's nothing to say that we couldn't have the 2 labbys floating so that the one with the most units in it, will be assigned to the color your bet selection method says to bet next.

I'm not sure how to do this with a win progression and a lose progression but there should be a way to adapt it.

Using labbys may not help in the long run.  The thing that kills it is a run of wins on one side which results in the bet for that side being 1 unit and the bet on the opposite side climbing to larger unit sizes.  I think the dynamic part of your idea can be worked using labbys the same as it works unisng D'Alembert.

One other thing I do is reset all labbys anytime I reach a new high bank at which time I go back to just betting 1 unit on the last color until I have 2 losses.  I do this 1 unit flat bet without involving labbys for simplicity and because most of our wins will be in the 1st 2 bets.

It's late and the Patriots just got edged out in the Super Bowl so this may not be making much sense.

If you think it's worth persuing and you have any questions, maybe we can work them out together, but I am limited on how much time I can invest in roulette at the moment.

GLC

[Colbster]

Thanks for the explanation, GLC!  I see how that could be a useful variation.  It may be the bet selection I am using, but I am concerned that dueling Labby's have a severe risk profile.  When I play with the bet selection I mentioned earlier, there are streaks of 8-10 Highs or Lows in a row that mean 8-10 wins in a row.  Depending on the first number of the Labby on the losing side, that could be very hazardous to our bankroll!!!  I have found that the losing side holds up slightly better than the winning side using my bet selection, so it might be that we use the Labby on the winning side and the d'Alembert on the losing side.  That does make it harder to swap at the appropriate time, which I think is the strength of what I am aiming to do on this thread.  If we had a bet selection that chopped between winners and loser regularly, the differential Labby's might be just the trick.  I think I will be staying with the d'Alembert for the time being.

[Tomla021]

the selection soso and the reverse might be more stable?

[Colbster]

Absolutely!  The bet selection is nothing to write home about.  It is simple to track and wins about 50% of the time.  It isn't bad, but it relies on streaks of WWWWWWWWW to come back from the deficits of the rest of the time.  We could probably do just as well with penultimate, which is even easier to track and you get to bet every spin.  My point of using this was to take a marginal bet selection and show how to use the differential betting to gain an advantage, which I think is what we have here.

[Tomla021]

I def think its a great way to go....Hope more people get interested it could be more than interesting

[Tomla021]

going thru exactly what has to be bet on what is super hard for me but i guess with some practice it should get easier.....i hope:)

[Colbster]

Glad you are giving it a whirl, Tomla.  It has held up very well so far for me.  I am continuing to test with the bet selection I outlined for the sake of continuity, but may change that up eventually.  Like I said, penultimate is an even easier tracking bet selection and should perform just about as well.  If you have any questions, shoot me a PM and I will give you whatever help you need.

[Colbster]

I continue to be pleased with my results testing just on the H/L, so I decided to do some testing with the other ECs.  I first did B/R which performed just as well as the H/L.  Thus, I decided to integrate a tracker spreadsheet for all three ECs at the same time.  The blank template is attached, as is a set that I played earlier this morning as an example.  If you are confused by the example play, go back and read the comments from the earlier example posted in this thread for explanation.

A couple of notes on this new spreadsheet:

   
• I had to hide a bunch of unnecessary rows to make all the data fit on the screen in Excel at the same time.  If you like the data, you can simply highlight the rows, right click and choose "unhide".
• There is a lot of data that can become visually overwhelming.  I added conditional formatting to highlight when there is a bet to be had on any of the ECs.  I also added a red border that will appear any time a cell for a progression contains 11.  I don't actually know how to only do this the first time, so it will appear on every 11.  This is just to help you know when to swap progressions the first time, but it might become confusing down the road.  Let me know if it is easier to just remove this, or clear the conditional highlighting yourself if you know how to do that in Excel.
• This seems like a system where 2 ECs will be running great and one will be struggling along.  Obviously, you might choose to stop playing the poor performing EC and let the other two run free.
• The progression seems to lag occasionally and generate a N/A at times when I'm not sure that it is supposed to.  Any technical help from others on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

I hope this tracking sheet meets with everyone's approval.  Let me know if there is anything I can do to make this more useful to the community.  I think there is a lot of merit to this method.

[Colbster]

Here is an example session of just under 300 spins that shows how resilient testing this system against all three ECs concurrently can be.  After 218 spins, the B/R EC failed with a total of loss of -76 units.  However, by that time, the other two ECs had a cumulative +92, meaning we could walk away on the loss with a +16 units in our pockets.  However, I played for a while more to continue testing the other ECs results.  By 299 spins, our other two ECs had earned a cumulative +242 units, meaning we were up 166 units in 300 spins, or a little better than +0.50 units per spin, even with the loss from the B/R.

Just as a side note, I did let the tracking on the B/R run while I played the other two.  At one point, it recovered completely to a positive balance before falling back down.  For those who have larger bankrolls, it might be worth letting the tracking go to 16 instead of 11 and playing to a loss at 30 instead of 20.  You could argue the optimum arrangement all day, and I won't here, but it is something to consider as you look at this method.

[Colbster]

Since the previous spreadsheet hasn't been downloaded very much, I figured I would summarize the results of my first foray into tracking all 3 ECs.

Total spins:  259
Total win/loss:  +241
Lowest point:  -22

There were several times when the B/R EC fell below zero besides that lowest point of -22.  However, the other two ECs were already ahead and racing down the track to gains which easily offset the lowest drawdown for the B/R, which was -33 for 1 spin.

[Colbster]

I just had a session of 300 spins where two of the ECs busted.  One of the busts cost me 71 units, which was offset by the gains from the winning EC (+76).  The first bust came at spin 229, again from the B/R (!!!!!), costing 97 units.  Grand total from the session was -92 units net.  Not good, but really not bad considering it eventually busted not one, but two 20 step progressions with a total loss of only 92 units.  When added to the winning sessions, this is only a minor setback and one that does not concern me greatly.  Just wanted to give full disclosure of a losing session, as I hate those threads that claim 32,000 consecutive wins and I bust out on my second go.

[Colbster]

Another session, another fine result.  199 spins, a win on each of the 3 ECs.  Grand total, this session ended up 163 units.  The results are attached.  Would love some help testing, as I don't know coding, but this looks really solid.