### Author Topic: Beating roulette with math...  (Read 56451 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

#### Belgian

• New
• Posts: 25
• Thanked: 6 times
##### Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2010, 09:59:10 AM »
Hi guy's.

I really don't want to add much to my former posts anymore, but I don't understand all these negative arguments. The labby will outlast any negative losing streak, when i told you i tested against the worst permanences of Hamburg, it means that it survived also streaks as 10 W against 48L without even come near table limits. Worse streaks are not available over 7 years, so what is the problem actually? And off course, it doesn't matter at all that you don't know in front when these bad streaks occur, as long as you are prepared for it with every bet you put at stake.

Belgian

#### RouletteRaider

• Guest
##### Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2010, 12:20:54 PM »
Quote
I have still many idea's left to investigate due to the flexibility of the Labby, it has hundreds of hidden possibilities

I agree. There are many ways to play a Labouchere, many variables, and I think its something we should all look at and think about.

However, the concern for me with the current money management strategy for the 200/65 method is that there could be a distribution of wins/losses where you could end up with 64 out of the 65 predicted wins used up, and at this point, how many losses can we expect to find at most? Because if we are in a situation where we have only one 'win' left to spread our losses over, then martingale-style doubling up will be needed. Which is not what we want!

#### Hann

• Guest
##### Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2010, 12:23:15 PM »
I also asked Belgian and Lazarous the same thing RR. Just because something is "due" doesn't mean its due on the next spin. Their explanation was to spread out the losses again, but that would negate the whole purpose of the labby.

On the other hand, after playing this through many sessions, (long and arduous I might add) I did what they suggested and it worked out fine.

#### John

• Guest
##### Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2010, 12:24:21 PM »
Hann

Ok, but what exactly are you betting on?

Cheers

#### Hann

• Guest
##### Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2010, 12:27:20 PM »
Hi John,

I'm betting that 65 reds will show before 200 spins. Some times I will use 65 ones, sometimes twos, depending on what I feel like risking. Most times though its 64 zeros plus one one. On each win I cross out once. As RR stated and what is true is that towards the end of the progression the bets get larger.

#### Belgian

• New
• Posts: 25
• Thanked: 6 times
##### Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2010, 12:32:00 PM »
Hi all,

Because there is a lot of interest on this subject and there are many struggling with the many possibilities, I will explain a little bit more:

First of all, my aim is off course to walk out of the casino with a decent profit most of the times. This is off course in contradiction with the ultimate "safe way" of play, therefore I try to find a balance between them. the nice thing with the labby is that you are warned in due time for dangerous situations that can occur, and in these moments I will start palying very carefully, meaning change my bets, transfer figures to other even chances, and last off all spreading the Labby(which is unadvisable, because it means that you have to win more bets to get out of it).

I start playing with 0,1 on one even chance, the one that shows the least large series (so the most choppy one). my bet selection is playing on the brake of series of 1, 2 and 3. If a series of 4 appear I stop betting till the series brakes. Then continue the betting. In this way I don't have any problem with 68% (theoretical appearance % of series of 1,2 and 3) of the charts in terms of losing a bet in the labby. When a series of 4 or longer appears, it means my labby contains 2 more figures. The dangerous chart is therefore the appearance of alternating series of 4 and longer. After occurrence of 2 alternating series of 4, i will transfer half of the figures to another even chance that is the most choppy to divide the risks.

As everybody should know by now, I combine mini-marti with The Labby, meaning, I play pairs of decisions with 1 and 2 unit bets. If I lose 2 consecutive bets My labby gets 2 new figures: example:

When I lose 6 bets in a row my Labby is: 0,1,1,2,3,3, next bet in pair: 3 units, if lost 6 units, if lost labby is 0,1,1,2,3,3,4,5. It is just an example because as stated before I would have already transfered some of the figures to another even chance, or sometimes even to both other even chances.

another way of lowering bets without spreading the Labby is the Low/High principle: after you lose the first pair and The Labby is 0,1,1,2, your next bet isn't 2 and 4, but again 1 and 2, so repeat of the first betpair until you win, then continue like normal (first and last number of The Labby added) Low stands for low bet, High for high(=normal bet).

So, you have a lot of possibilities to stay low in the bets during bad streaks, without spreading the labby into more figures needed to stay within the 1:2 ration needed to close the Labby. The way I play with pairs it means you need only 1:3 wins to close it (actually 1:3 plus 1 bet). So for example when you play on R then you need only in 50 spins 13 R to close it. That is already very close to the worst expectations in terms of Ecards. (see the figures given by Muck) and without taken into account the many possibilities you have to keep the bets low.

Judging when to take countermeasures when there is possible danger for a bad streak is unfortunately not something where we can give rigid rules for, it will be personal decisions.

One thing I want to emphasize is that dividing losing bets in more then 2 figures should be avoided as long as possible, because that will change the 1:2 (or in my case 1:3) . But in the 1:3 it means that if you divide in 4 figures you still have an advantage of 2:3 W/L, but for me this would be the last countermeasure I would take. (didn't need it till now).

Off course , who knows, one day we will see 100 spins, and only 10 blacks, then also this strategy will fail, but the chances are almost 0, and we still are gambling.

with a BR of 2000 units, in Theory you should overcome any bad permanence. The Labby will always ends, how longer the session, how bigger the chances, because the Ecards will become smaller according the Law of the large numbers.

I hopes this helps,
Belgian

#### John

• Guest
##### Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #36 on: December 22, 2010, 12:34:14 PM »
Hi Belgian,

I gave up playing Roulette a few years back, because after a while not only are you playing against the 2.7% H/edge, you end up playing against the dealers also.

Having sat on the periphery of this thread, you certainly have renewed my interest in this game, this does look very interesting. I will spend some time digesting what you have posted.

Thanks Hann, I wasn't paying full attention.

Regards

#### Elt

• Guest
##### Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #37 on: December 22, 2010, 12:36:11 PM »
Hi Belgian,

I don't know if I posted in this thread yesterday or in the Johnson progression one, but anyways... I posted my test results after 50 million spins there. These are false results, the random generator was acting up giving me wrong answers.

I ran the test again today, and after 50 million spins there were no sessions going below 65 out of 200. The lowest number recorded by me was 68 and that only happened once in the 50 millions spins (or 25,000 sessions).

Running a 5 billion spin test right now, takes a while.. Smile Also working on a betting progression, will post later on... good stuff!

Greets,
Elt

#### Duncan

• New
• Posts: 99
• Thanked: 51 times
##### Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #38 on: January 01, 2011, 11:33:09 AM »
Hello.
I really need to thank Belgian for his very wonderfull idea and hints!

The rare event that I am looking for is in 60 spins to have 18/42 of RED and BLACKS.
You have to admit that this is a VERY rare thing to happen!

I didn t find any permanence like this in the German site(after searching for some hours) of the real roulette spins BUT I invented my own session from hell!
I also made the wins very spread in those 60 spins in order to be very prepared in the real game to see the maximum BR that i am gonna need.

My winning target is +10 chips (so if I will have at least 18 of 42 I will end up with +10)

I devepoped a special modification of "labby" progression and the Maximum down( - ) inside the hell session was -140 chips...The biggest bet that I had to make was 98 chips in 1 spin.

So the Br needed to win in this hell session is 140 chips....

I really don t know why Belgian needs 1.500 chips?
I guess is because he playes the original labby?

Anyway thanks again....you gave me hopes !

#### Duncan

• New
• Posts: 99
• Thanked: 51 times
##### Re: Beating roulette with math...
« Reply #39 on: January 01, 2011, 01:32:20 PM »
I am thinking that the only problem with this way of playing would be when in the labby we will be at the final bettings and the Ec does NOT win....then the progression would be like martignale!