Bitcoin jackpot 728x90

Author Topic: Labouchere with a Twist  (Read 10513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Romn.Paras

  • Moderator
  • New
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 17 times
Labouchere with a Twist
« on: November 14, 2014, 11:11:53 PM »
Hello Friends.  I decided to do some research  on The Labouchere System.   Like in the case of the D'Alembert, the
theory is sound, but in order to be of any practical value at the Tables, it should be utilized with extreme caution. Of this I am aware, from seeing a friend lose four separate capitals of 1000 pounds within the space of three months.
He played a strict ' Labby ' without taking any unnecessary risks, and only tried to win 20 pounds per day ; but his mistake was probably the very common one of playing a game too high for his capital, and had he risked the whole 4000 pounds in one lump sum, and played the same stakes, he would very probably have survived.

But if any one thinks of playing it seriously, I would recommend them to be content with a very small win, and to play on the improved method which I am about to describe. The idea of the ordinary ' Labby ' is to set yourself the task of winning a certain sum, and to so arrange your stakes, that whenever you score a win it will wipe out two previous losses. The usual method is to write down, say:
1
2
3

 on your score-sheet, and always stake the sum total of the top and bottom  figures added together, writing down the losses that occur at the end of the column, and striking out all wins. For example, in the above case you stake 1 + 3=4, and suppose you lose, you then write down the 4 at the end of the column, and your next stake will be 1 + 4 = 5.

1
2
3
4

Suppose you win, you strike out the 1 and the 4 and your score-sheet. Your next stake would then be 2 + 3 = 5. If
you lose, you write it underneath the canceled 4, and your next stake would be 2 + 5 = 7. Suppose you lose this, your next stake would be 2 + 7 = 9. If you win, after erasing the 2 and the 7 your
score-sheet appears thus:
X
X
3
X
5
X

Your next stake would be 8, and in the event of a win, your first task would be finished. You are a winner of 6 units, and you have to start afresh with
1
2
3

to win another six.

This is the way that most people play the 'Labby', often starting with the idea that they are quite safe with a capital of 1000 or even 500 units.  But such is not the case.  If you happen to come across an unfavorable sequence, your stakes mount up very quickly and you will find yourself in serious difficulties.

My idea of an improvement on the ordinary way would be to attack the Bank with ten little 'Labbies' instead of one big one. For example, suppose on arriving at the table, you had the bad luck commence as follows:
1 win, 2 Losses, 1 win, 3 Losses.  Under the ordinary method of writing down

1
2
3

your score sheet would appear as follows. (I will score the game horizontally instead to economize space.)

X X X X X X X X 6 8 10 X X 16 22 28

It will be seen that the stakes are already becoming dangerously large. Now under my improved method I should commence with

1                  1
2  instead of  2
1                  3

and open ten different scores, playing on each one turn. My score sheet would then appear as follows:

X  1  1  X  X  1  1  X  1  1 
2  2  2  X  2  2  2  2  2  2 
X  1  1  X  1  1  1  X  1  1 
-------------------------------
    2  2      X  2  2      2  2        First 10 coups
2  3  3          3  3  2                Second 10 coups

The difference in the two methods becomes apparent. In the first case we have got to stake 34 units and in the event of a win it will have to be followed by 30, and then 26, and if any of these 3 coups are lost the stakes will mount much higher.

Now, under the slower and safer method, we have started badly it is true, but up to the present the largest stake we are threatened with is only 4 units, the reason being that the bad luck has been SPREAD OVER a number of columns instead of all being added to one solitary one.

After this bad beginning, let us assume that the luck remains about normal for the next 50 or 60 coups.  The result of this will probably be that about 7 out of your 10 original scores will have been entirely obliterated, leaving say 3 remaining. These three will then have something like the following appearance:

X    X     X
X    X     X
1    1     1
2    2     2
3    X     X
X    X     4
X    3     X
4    4     5
------------
10  10  12  Total Outstanding

Now with only 3 scores open, if we come suddenly on another run of bad luck, such as at the commencement of the game, we shall soon find ourselves forced into big figures.  It will therefore be more prudent to split our 3 remaining scores into six columns and have a little more patience.

We can split each column into two in the following way

1 1         1  1       2 2
2 2         2  2       2 2
2 2         2  2       2 2

Now continue playing on each turn as before. After about 30 coups of varying luck, probably 5 out of these columns will have been obliterated, leaving only one, which will look something like this:
X
X
X
2
4
6
X
8
-------
20       Total Outstanding

We have reduced our amount outstanding from 32 to 20 but the one remaining column is beginning to look dangerous. Prudence therefore dictates that we should again have recourse to the splitting process.

It now ought to be quite safe to split our outstanding amount to 4 columns instead of six.  We should do so in the following manner

1  1  1  1
2  2  2  2
2  2  2  2

Unless we suddenly come across a run of bad luck we may soon hope to wipe all the figures out.  Possibly three of the columns may disappear at once, leaving only one which again assumes threatening proportions.  In this case, rather than risk high stakes, I should once more split up the remaining column into two or three separate ones, according to size.

As soon as all figures are wiped out, the player would have won 40 units. There is a story of a man who had won 90,000 francs on this method, beginning with only a comparatively small capital.

Try this method for yourself and see how it works. 



 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
  • Thanked: 924 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2014, 03:53:30 PM »
Congrats my friend!
This is one of the greatest systems I ever read in any forum.
Thank you very much for participating here and for explaining you ideas clearly with great care, detail.
And the point about the bankroll being insufficient and the cause of problems is spot on. I guess your friend didn't play with 1 pound chips, but bigger.
Thank you
 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2014, 04:02:17 PM by kav »
 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 26 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2014, 05:32:46 AM »
Such a split and avoid big bets labouchere sounds great but they work in a given favorable condition only. When we split labby, we split its power to win in a mathematical win loss ratio TOO ( a labby usually wins in 1/3rd plus 1 or two wins of the EC bet in total number of bets). Further, if you split it at wrong moments, instead of helping, it will only increase burden.
                  Labouchere itself came from slicing Martingale. Both progressions seem to beat the random game mathematically but only if you have infinite chips and unlimited table to play.
I give you a simple 100 spins of L/W to work upon with this idea. If you win this, I will give two more and if your progression beats all three, I can consider it playable:
  LLLWL LLWLL LLLWL LWLWL LLWWL LLWLW LLLLL WLLWL LLLLW WLWLW
LLWLL WLWWW LLLWL LLLLL WWLLW LLWWW LLLWW LWWLL LLWWL LWLWW

THIS IS 36 WINS VS 64 LOSSES
 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 26 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2014, 06:01:43 AM »
@ Kav,
And to your surprise, this so much innovative looking approach is copied verbatim from a 1910 book, "Monte Carlo Anecdotes".

P.S: I hope my this comment with proof will not be deleted.

 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
  • Thanked: 924 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2014, 03:13:40 PM »
Hi alba,

No I have no problem with your reference of the book. I still think the original post has great value because otherwise that system would remain buried in a book (almost) nobody reads.
And you do have a point when you say that we reduce the effectiveness of the Labby when we split it - I agree. It is a fine line between having an efficient system and a safe system. Efficiency is the opposite of security. The greater the risk the better the efficiency of a method. And in this case we also have another dichotomy I have already explained in an older post: fluctuation vs streaks . In case of long streaks but good overall distribution it is better to divide the Labby while in case of short streaks but great overall deviation it is better to stay with the original Labouchere.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 10:45:08 PM by kav »
 

Romn.Paras

  • Moderator
  • New
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2014, 10:41:41 PM »
Yes, I have found that system in that book.  I wanted to share it with all of you that may not have seen it or remembered it. That is why I said that I did some research on the Labouchere System.  I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention who may not have access to the book. My goal is to share with all of you everything that I have read, and tried and played. 
 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 26 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2014, 04:50:53 AM »
Don't get mesmerized so easily when you read any money management. I worked upon about 10 types of labouchere including HP Johnson, this 104 year old variant and a few that I created myself. Actually, every money management be it Flat bet or Martingale work great in a particular favorable situation. Similarly, they fail very miserably in an unfavorable case. If you increase your bet or decrease it at a given time, it may go exactly opposite your expectations and instead of pulling you towards a net win, it can push you towards irrecoverable losses. This can happen in innumerable probabilities and there is no MM that can plug all the holes within a reasonable bankroll and table limits.
                           Copy pasting from proven failure ideas won't help us but only waste our time. We need researches and innovation and out of box thinking.
          I gave a sample session in my last post to show how hollow this great looking MM is. I request Romn to go through that and put the results before us. Maybe we get to see some new light.
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
  • Thanked: 924 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2014, 09:06:24 AM »
Alba do you have any better system to offer?
Because you haven't so far.
Maybe it just makes you feel superior bashing other peoples ideas, but when you have not explained any other approach yourself, I wonder what your point is.
 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 26 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2014, 06:59:05 PM »
@Kav,
        If the forum is meant for copy paste of failure ideas from here and there and clapping thereupon, I can (or anybody else can too) put a lot of garbage here in terms of "systems". The writer of the topic here got so much obsessed with copy-paste that he quoted the experience of author's friend as of his own.
           
                      Nevertheless, I even doubt that he has even understood the pros and cons of the method he bothered to copy from an old book and presented here, as it is. He can't even simulate with a given session of mine what he learnt from it.

Regarding my writing of systems, I do not write systems daily. If play left or play right or increase 1 unit or decrease 2 unit without any logic looks like a "system" to you, I am sorry to say, I am not into such failure stuff. I am a system analyst and a researcher. You can see a few of my systems on my blog. I used to write my systems at other public boards too earlier but no more systems for me.
                       If you feel that I am, in some way or other, hindering the creativity of ur members, my apologies.
                           
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
  • Thanked: 924 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2014, 09:56:27 PM »
Dear Ablalaha,

I asked specifically if you had any better system idea to offer.
Do you?
Because you haven't so far.

Criticism is far too easy. I can comment on your systems, saying they are useless as easily as you have done for this system, which I still believe is a great approach, better than the majority you read on forums. If the above system is your definition of garbage, I'm sorry but IMO it is of more value than anything you have written so far.

Yes, I do believe your unjustified criticism is demotivating and unproductive. However I accept your apologies and ask you to try and inspire us with your next post if you can.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 09:58:58 PM by kav »
 

Romn.Paras

  • Moderator
  • New
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2014, 11:08:24 PM »
What do you mean by failure? That word is being thrown around a lot.  Would you mind being specific about that? Are you saying the people that have played these systems lost EVERY TIME they played?   I am a student of the game and I enjoy all of the philosophies and all the game has to offer.  I have played many versions of the Labouchere System and have lost some and have won some.  I have used the Martingale system, the Paroli, Oscar Grind, D'alambert, Fitzroy, Ascot, Tier et Tout,and Wrangler Systems in real life, and I have won with these systems and I have lost with these systems. Some of them I have won more and others I have lost more. That is what makes if fun. There is NO ONE CORRECT WAY.  I have gone up to a table thrown down 50 dollars on a number and it come up on the first spin. Likewise I have sat for over 100 spins and my number hasn't come up. The key to understand  any strategy or system is that what works for one table will not necessarily work on another table.  In my experience each wheel has its own "personality".  There is NO One Size Fits All Approach. A system or strategy that works for me, might not work for someone else. That is the brilliance of the game. I may play a system differently because I think differently. I have different tendencies, analysis, and experiences that I bring to the table that are different from yours.  I am amazed by the arrogance people have in that they believe they are in control of what is going to happen, when in the grand scheme of things we are not in control.

 

Romn.Paras

  • Moderator
  • New
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2014, 12:39:12 AM »
Here are the results of the test of this system.  As you can see that after 100 spins the highest my wager went was 8 units. Every time the bets started getting higher I would just split the column. Had the game kept going I would have kept playing until a favorable series appeared, crossed more columns, and kept plugging away.  The question is are you willing to sit at a table for 6 or 7 hours to win?  In presenting this theory more accurately we need to know what is the bankroll the player starts at, what are the table limits and what are the units being bet? This was not presented in the test. One needs to determine a sufficient bankroll before playing ANY system. There are two great references  in this site for this situation.  Roulette Expectation vs. Probability and Risk to Ruin Bankroll Management. With out a proper bankroll, a system is less likely to succeed.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 02:15:22 AM by kav »
 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 26 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2014, 09:28:43 AM »
Dear Romn. Paras,
             It shows your lack of knowledge of simulation. You have taken the method on its face value. If you keep playing this way, you will get in a trench where it would be impossible to come out. Can you please try to do the given 100 W/L so that I can show you what is exactly wrong about playing this way?
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2014, 11:46:49 AM »
albalaha,

What is the point of posting a particular sequence? Any specific sequence can be easily reverse engineered; for your sequence a 7 step martingale would clean up, but what does that prove? nothing.

If the requirement is to use the system as posted here then there is of course no guarantee that it will make a profit within the given number of outcomes, but the ratio of wins to losses will no doubt begin to equalize given a larger sample, which you have not posted. You cannot have your cake and eat it; safety comes at the cost of a longer time at the table. Taking a larger sample is the surest way to defeat short-term variance.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 11:51:12 AM by Mike »
 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 26 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Labouchere with a Twist
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2014, 01:37:22 PM »
@Mike,
           Any given L/W can be reverse engineered but here since method is clear and without any ambiguity, there is no room for that, if u care to read the debate before commenting. Secondly, any progression that increases bet is basically meant to win in lesser wins than average, although all fail to achieve the same.
              The given session has all the traits that is required to acid test this system. Let Romn come with the session worked out.