Author Topic: Labouchere with a Twist  (Read 10092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
  • Thanked: 436 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2014, 04:55:57 PM »
Albalaha you write you are a system researcher. I suppose you are familar with excel. Test a 200 spin sample and a 500 spin sample.My programs record the bets, the payout and the profit. At the end of the samples the program compute the profit percentage. I predict the profit percentage of the 500 sample is about -2,7%.
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2014, 06:52:44 PM »
@ albalaha,

Fair enough, but you didn't address my point, which was that it also proves nothing either way if any system does or does not win a specific short sequence such as the one you posted. The stretched labby posted by Romn.paras might have cleared all the debts given another 20, 30 or more outcomes, but as you didn't post how the sequence continued, we'll never know.

I'm having a hard time figuring out just what your purpose is posting on these forums. On the one hand you say you're a system analyst and researcher, and claim to have played professionally, boasting that "I have done it, now your turn", but you also are very quick to criticize any systems you see, and in fact claim that none works.

Do you see the contradiction?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that no system works, but I also don't claim to have "beaten" roulette, baccarat, or any other NE game.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 06:55:52 PM by Mike »
 

Romn.Paras

  • Moderator
  • New
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2014, 07:56:03 PM »
Hello All.

I enjoy such lively discussion that this thread has posed. Mike, I agree with you that no system can beat roulette. I like your input Mike. You make many wonderful points.

I was challenged again about this system. Anyone can simulate, or hypothesize what may or may not happen. There is no such thing as a safe system.  So I decided to take it one step further and just like Kav, put my money where my mouth is. I live near Las Vegas so I can pretty much go and test these systems anytime I want in REAL LIFE. Not Simulate.

So I went and decided to play with 900 dollars of my own money to prove this theory.  Many people like to criticize and put down theories because that's easy. It is easy to hide behind a computer but few are willing to back what they believe to be true and actually put it to the test. How many people would actually be willing to put real money on a system or idea that they think can work?  Very few.  I believe that this system can work. I don't believe it will work ALL the time. I posted my results here and even posted some interesting notes about the progressions as the game went on.

As you can see I started with a 900 dollar bankroll. Having a sufficient bankroll is key to ANY system's success. The reason why is because it is about double the amount I wanted to win and it was almost 50 times my minimum bet of 20 dollars. 1 unit equals 10 dollars for reference purposes.  I decided to play Black/Red and I used the staking method of follow the second preceding color that appeared. If that color didn't appear after 2 consecutive losses, I then switched to the opposite and played the opposite of what color came up until I lost and then I went back to the previous way of staking.

You will also see that Red came in succession 9 spins in a row and at one point Red came up 8 out of 10 spins during the game .  So the examples that I was given to test were generated and hypothetical, not random like it is here in real life. You can't plug that into a computer.  It took me a total of 33 minutes and left with a bankroll of 1,300 dollars.

So, I agree that there is no system that can beat roulette ALL of the time, but as for the rest of the argument about it  being a failure is invalid. Your argument is null and void to me. It is possible to win with this system.   Here is a situation that proves it can be successful.

What I think some players fail to see, is that in a video posted on the website, there are NO GUARANTIES in Roulette and Life.  Here is the video I am talking about  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIIelgAU7f8 [nofollow]

Thank you Kav for posting this video. This is the most honest answer I have heard.

It is in my opinion that many times we OVERANALYIZE a system so much that we become engrossed in the bottom line and forget to ENJOY THE GAME . That is what it is all about.  I felt that the books that were written back then had to have some merit to them.  There is no sense in trying to reinvent the wheel. Success leaves clues. Most of the methods that I play are a variation of other methods, but the foundation for them was standing on the shoulders of other giants who came up with them.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 04:57:06 AM by Romn.Paras »
 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2014, 07:28:21 AM »
@ albalaha,

Fair enough, but you didn't address my point, which was that it also proves nothing either way if any system does or does not win a specific short sequence such as the one you posted. The stretched labby posted by Romn.paras might have cleared all the debts given another 20, 30 or more outcomes, but as you didn't post how the sequence continued, we'll never know.

I'm having a hard time figuring out just what your purpose is posting on these forums. On the one hand you say you're a system analyst and researcher, and claim to have played professionally, boasting that "I have done it, now your turn", but you also are very quick to criticize any systems you see, and in fact claim that none works.

Do you see the contradiction?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that no system works, but I also don't claim to have "beaten" roulette, baccarat, or any other NE game.

          For your records,  I just proved that I can extract from randomness, in long run, without any reverse engineering on given data. I reverse engineered the randomness and understood its virtual limits. Unless you have a plan to handle them, you are only destined to lose.
                         If members are here to clap on copy paste of failed ideas and if showing the truth is a sin here, I do not belong to this place. I prefer to never comment on such systems but when it leads to false hopes, blind appreciations without even understanding it, I thought it is my duty to let you know the downsides or the catch in the system. Even the topic starter is not bothered (or he can't use the so called MM himself) to simulate a simple 100 spins, to showcase how it does in a bit difficult session.

P.S: If you put your money where your mouth is, you are doing that for yourself.

Carry on guys.
                           
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2014, 07:46:09 AM »
Quote
For your records,  I just proved that I can extract from randomness, in long run, without any reverse engineering on given data. I reverse engineered the randomness and understood its virtual limits. Unless you have a plan to handle them, you are only destined to lose.

Sorry, but where did you prove you can beat randomness? I must have missed it.

You don't seem to realize it, but you are contradicting yourself again. A "plan to handle" the virtual limits is a system, plain and simple, but you say that no winning system is possible (and I agree with you).

And you also didn't address the point I made about the sequence you posted above. It is pointless to throw out silly challenges when they don't correspond to any reality. To take a sequence of X decisions which represent the "run from hell" and then demand that a system makes a profit within those X decisions is absurd. Under real conditions, any sensible player would adjust their stakes accordingly, and play on after the losing run in an attempt to recoup.

Either you don't seem to realize this (in which case it puts your claims that you have beaten the game in serious doubt), or you are simply being a troll.
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
  • Thanked: 436 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2014, 10:43:36 AM »
A positive result of a session can never be a proof the roulette is beaten.
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2014, 05:44:13 PM »
The graph looks impressive, but the system is unplayable. It's actually not that hard to come up with a system which will win consistently on paper or by simulation if you disregard the reality of actually doing it in a casino. But still, you deserve credit for showing that it's at least doable in theory.
 

Romn.Paras

  • Moderator
  • New
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2014, 02:12:33 AM »
Albalaha,

You have done wonderful research and no doubt it looks like you spent a lot of time and I respect that.  I think there is one thing we do have to take into consideration.

On August 18, 1913, at the casino in Monte Carlo, black came up a record twenty-six times in succession in roulette. There was a near-panicky rush to bet on red, beginning about the time black had come up a phenomenal fifteen times. In application of the maturity of chances doctrine the gambler's fallacy, players doubled and tripled their stakes, this doctrine leading them to believe after black came up the twentieth time that there was not a chance in a million of another repeat. In the end the unusual run enriched the Casino by some millions of francs.

Source: Darrell Huff & Irving Geis, How to Take a Chance (1959), pp. 28-29.

The Gambler's Fallacy is based on a failure to understand statistical independence, that is, two events are statistically independent when the occurrence of one has no statistical effect upon the occurrence of the other. Statistical independence is connected to the notion of randomness in the following way: what makes a sequence random is that its members are statistically independent of each other. For instance, a list of random numbers is such that one cannot predict better than chance any member of the list based upon a knowledge of the other list members.

To understand statistical independence, try the following experiment. Predict the next member of each of the two following sequences:

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, __
4, 6, 6, 1, 9, __

The first is the beginning of the sequence of prime numbers. The second is a random sequence gathered from the last digits of the first five numbers in a phone book. The first sequence is non-random, and predictable if one knows the way that it is generated. The second sequence is random and unpredictable—unless, of course, you look in the phone book, but that is not prediction, that is just looking at the sequence—because there is no underlying pattern to the sequence of last digits of telephone numbers in a phone book. The numbers in the second sequence are statistically independent of each other.

Many gambling games are based upon randomly-generated, statistically independent sequences, such as the series of numbers generated by a roulette wheel, or by throws of unloaded dice. A fair coin produces a random sequence of "heads" or "tails", that is, each flip of the coin is statistically independent of all the other flips. This is what is meant by saying that the coin is "fair", namely, that it is not biased in such a way as to produce a predictable sequence.

Consider the Example: If the roulette wheel at the Casino was fair, then the probability of the ball landing on black was a little less than one-half on any given turn of the wheel. Also, since the wheel is fair, the colors that come up are statistically independent of one another, thus no matter how many times the ball has fallen on black, the probability is still the same. If it were possible to predict one color from others, then the wheel would not be a good randomizer. Remember that neither a roulette wheel nor the ball has a memory. 

Every gambling "system" is based on this fallacy, or its Sibling. Any gambler who thinks that he can record the results of a roulette wheel, or the throws at a craps table, or lotto numbers, and use this information to predict future outcomes is probably committing some form of the gambler's fallacy.

That is why it is important to set a stop loss and a win goal target. Playing the Labouchere system or any other system, has winning sessions and losing sessions because of this principal. 
 

Romn.Paras

  • Moderator
  • New
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2014, 11:49:11 PM »
Albalaha,

This is quite an interesting subject about randomness and I find it a great discussion.  I know in the link you mention Bayes' Theorem. I recently read an article about this using the example of a coin toss. The article maintains that the odds are 50:50 and that prior events cannot affect that outcome (which I accept). However if the gambler is given additional information that the first two tosses yielded  Heads can he/she not make another calculation. The probability of a 3 Heads sequence out of 3 tosses is 1/8th. So the 3rd toss is not only 50:50 chance of a Head it is also a 1/8th chance of a 3H sequence. So why does the 3rd toss (with this additional information) not give a combined probability of .3125?

Because the probability of a 3H sequence is only 1/8 BEFORE any coins have been tossed.  After you have already tossed 2H in a row, the probability of a 3H sequence is the same as the probability of flipping heads: 1/2.  The past outcomes of independent events do not effect future events.  We can illustrate this fact using Bayes' theorem:

P(A|B)=P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B)

So in this case, P(3H|2H)=P(2H|3H)*P(2H)/P(3H)

So. P(3H|2H)= 1*(1/4)/(1/8)=1/2

Let me ask you to consider this, Is flipping 10H a rare event? Is it more rare than flipping a mixture of H&T? If so then, with 9H in the bag and facing the 10th flip - simply knowing the probability of that last flip is 1/2 does not help at all with considering the rarity of a 10H sequence.

Therefore what formula should I use to adequately weigh the outcome of a 10th H? If there are 1024 possible outcomes and only 2 are 10 same-sequence results then, simplistically the probability of a 10th H is 1/512. This kind of approach would appropriately account for the increasing rareness of ever longer sequences.

Now in the game of roulette we have to understand that it is not 50/50. We have to factor in the house edge of 2.7% and in American roulette 5.4%

Philosophically, we have to factor in the house edge so that is why in my opinion we haven't seen 36 even chances in a row. The even chances are not truly 100% even.

On another side note philosophically , man invented the game so it can never be 100% perfect. Man cannot create perfection. Only God or whatever being of the universe one believes in who created the earth can be perfect.

« Last Edit: November 24, 2014, 12:04:31 AM by Romn.Paras »
 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2014, 03:35:49 AM »
@Romn
         History is not so much useless as people think. Actually in casino gambling, we need to deal with two kind of probabilities: 1. probability of the win of our bet, when we put it on table, it is simple. 2. Sequential probability of happening or non happening of a sequence, it is a complex thing to understand.
Odds of a win of any one EC, say Red = every two spins(forget the so called dreaded house edge for now)
Odds of getting two consecutive wins=every 4 spins
and so on..
                  Therefore, chance to get a longer series by 1 more hit is only half likely. That is why it gets useless to play, this way.
              If you have read the given debate specially my concluding post, you must have seen that I haven't recommended playing after so many successive wins of counterpart EC or trying a push to win progression in any case. I just wanted to say that, unless a bet has reached its virtual limits, it is always prone to drag further.
                  I do not prefer to copy-paste, even of my own writings and my debates are exclusive to one place. You can find most of them in my blog: albalaha.no spam.com
Come out of failure ideas. Repeating them is useless, in my humble opinion. Those who wrote them, failed themselves to benefit from them.