# Roulette Forum

## Roulette Forum => Roulette Strategy Discussion => Topic started by: Belgian on June 19, 2010, 03:33:31 AM

Title: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Belgian on June 19, 2010, 03:33:31 AM
Hi all,

I guess I will get a lot of negative comments on this post, but nevertheless I am probably one of few people believing in a mathematical solution for the game.

I don't want to give away all my gunpower in the first writing, but first want people get thinking in the right direction with some hints:

Most people creating systems based on math, so mechanical, get idea's and afterwards starting to analyse the risks of the bust, which will always come,
lets try the other way around:

Take as the starting points events that you are sure off that they will come:

For instance: in 36 spins, there are always more then 18 different numbers,
after 200 spins, there are never less then 65 Blacks or Reds and so on.

the only thing we have to do is find a progression that survives the most long period of spins till you know for sure that one of these events will happen, and off course this progression has to be handled within table limits.

Question: any idea's which event we can take as a basis to built our progression on? Second, any idea what kind of progression can be suitable?

We will talk about this later, but I found someone who managed all of this and gave me many clues to devellope it for myself.

Our goal will be 1 unit everyday, beating all the years of hamburg,what kind of bankroll do you think you will need? you are allowed to play no more then 200 spins everyday, less is possible off course, you have to play some kind of progression,

Any idea's?

belgian
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: kav on June 19, 2010, 10:18:27 AM
Hello Belgian and many thanks for joining our forum.

Your post is extremely interesting. And our way of thinking is very near to mine.

For instance: in 36 spins, there are always more then 18 different numbers, after 200 spins, there are never less then 65 Blacks or Reds and so on.
the only thing we have to do is find a progression that survives the most long period of spins till you know for sure that one of these events will happen, and off course this progression has to be handled within table limits.
Question: any idea's which event we can take as a basis to built our progression on? Second, any idea what kind of progression can be suitable?

Yes, these are very important facts. They show that NOT EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE, SOME THINGS ARE PREDICTABLE.
More than that you pose your question in a "mathematical problem" style which I like very much.

We will talk about this later, but I found someone who managed all of this and gave me many clues to develop it for myself.
It seems we all had a teacher... or not?

Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: lazarous on June 19, 2010, 11:39:03 AM
Your message is very interesting and,in my opinion,you are on the good way.But to be a bit critical,your statement,that I partially share,refers to statistics,not to math.If you could beat matematically roulette,a progression would be useless,even bet with a positive player edge would be enough for winning.The goal of winning 1 chip a day and run,it's a dream.You can maybe win,on average,one chip a day,but on an yearly basis.200 spins a day is perfect ,but for 150 day per year at least.As far as progression is concerned a recent German book states that "Bread Winner" and "Groupe of Seven" are the most effective.I only partially agree with that,but I like a lot these two progressions.For the event you ask for,I have some ideas,on even chance.The key principle is playing "against equilibrium" in short term.Anyone can interpretate that as he likes....Don't forget that in a short term roulette generetes unpredictebles numbers(random),in the very long term is not at all random.But this last point is interesting to know,but uselee for playng strategies.This is my opinion....Comments
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: ttt on June 19, 2010, 05:03:42 PM
One unit a day is almost no-brainer, especially with 200 spins to work with.

A Marty or an Oscar's Grind or any standard progression bet would give you that.

The REAL problem with folks winning and keeping the win(s) is pure averice/greed.

Hey, the bet won once, it will do it again....is the thinking. Can't say I disagree
with those thoughts as I have them myself.

The longer you park your butt in the chair at the table, the better advantage
the House has in getting back your profit PLUS nibble at your bankroll.

If I lived near a casino then every morning I'd walk in, have breakfast, make
a bet or two at craps or roulette and go home. My single unit size would be \$100.

\$700 a week tax-free works for me.

Could I do that? I don't know. I'd have to develop a strong will to walk once
I had reached my goal. Just like everyone else, I like to play.
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Belgian on June 20, 2010, 10:36:36 AM
OK,

We have so far already 2 different opinions, according to Lazarous it is a dream that you can make 1 unit FOR SURE EVERYDAY, according to ttt it is rather easy.

The arguments posted by ttt are not correct as everybody will know: there is no way to make 1 unit profit 100% sure everyday, every year with the Hamburg permanence (or any other permanence) with Oscar grind or whatever known system to me. It is always possible to get the permanence of horror right from the start.

Ok some more clue's:

Lazarous is correct, we will take the even chances as our betting target. In Europe this is the most logical one because if you lose to zero, you get back half of your bet, so the odds are only 1.35%.
Although I think there are a lot of other targets to choose, but they will probably involve a more complicated progression.

Over 1 year, playing everyday for getting 1 unit of profit, we will get around 37% ROI (return of investment) of our bankroll.

What in your opinion has to be the bankroll to earn this 1 unit everyday 100% sure?

What do we have to achieve in terms of % of winning bets to get this 1 unit? In other words, if we encounter the permanence of hell, lets say we play on red (off course it doesn't matter at all which bet selection you want to choose, as they don't make any difference in terms of odds) what is the most negative expectation we can encounter in 200 spins? We have to deal with this because off course we will get that sequence one day in our year of playing.

What kind of progression we have to use to be possible to face this permanence of hell? If you have the answer you solved beating the game.

Will be continued
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: ttt on June 20, 2010, 11:04:10 PM
Well,
I beg to differ. No doubt in my mind I can do a unit a day, every day, for the
rest of my life and I'd stake all I own and ever will own on that statement (except
for the dog and the firearms).

Since you say it can't be done....I'll run every file on their Website and prove
it. I prefer craps, but I'll do it just as easy in roulette.

But, since that will take a huge chunk of my time, make it worth my while.
I'll take \$5 per file....or match my winnings with real dollars. That way if I make
a bet and win 20 units instead of my target single unit I come out a bit ahead.

I'll make it easy on you...I'll only play with a 100 unit bank to start.
And I'll only use a single bet method, of my choice, throughout all the files.
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Hann on June 21, 2010, 05:27:06 PM
Lets me get this straight, whenever someone asks if there is a surefire method for winning at roulette, everyone answers an unanimous "NO", "No such thing". Nothing wins all the time.
Then here comes ttt saying he does have one that will win at least one unit everyday. Isn't that the holy grail everyone has been seeking?
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Belgian on June 22, 2010, 02:01:33 AM
Ttt,
I'm sorry to contradict you, but you are really making a mistake. To win one unit a day, every day, is impossible! There is a famous story(but it's not invented,is real) that occurred at Monte Carlo Casino at beginning of last century. The boss was the very well known Francois Blanc, that accepted the bet of a rich player. The player asked to be allowed to go away at + 1 every day,without that the casino complained,but he promised to bet 365 day a year,with high bet unit. He also asked to multiply by five,only for him, the max bet table limit. Of course he could bet one time a day(if +) or he 'd have continued every day, until the win goal were reached.Francois Blanc accepted and the player at the end was ruined.... I have on a French book the detail of the results every day. If you are interested i can write them here in a next message!
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: winner on June 22, 2010, 05:07:57 PM
I'll throw in my 2p as well.

Your originally question was if you could beat roulette with math. I would say 'no'. All systems seem to be tested with mathematical odds. The problem is the odds are calculated against perfection: The wheel must e mathematically perfect, the ball must be mathematically perfect etc. As these are obviously not perfect, the 'mathematical created odds' are not the quite the same as reality.

Does that make sense?
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: UK on June 22, 2010, 05:50:40 PM
Belgian,

This is an interesting thread and you've raised some good points.
I've been working on a program which attempts to answer some of the questions you've raised - its based on the ideas in Philip Koetsch's book "Conquer the Casinos". I agree with you in that I too believe that a solution (if one exists) will be based on mathematical analysis.

Quote:
what is the most negative expectation we can encounter in 200 spins?

Quote:
It is always possible to get the permanence of horror right from the start.

The program so far will answer the first question and also address the 2nd point in that it will tell you what % of sessions will start of with a loss and never get to a +ve balance throughout the session. The program simulates even money roulette (betting on red) and the le partage rule (1.35% edge) with 100,000 sessions of length 200 spins.
For flat betting:

number of sessions always in a net loss = 6553 (6.55%)
average peak gain within a round = 9.44
average peak loss within a round = -12.11
actual peak gain in 100,000 rounds = 58.00
actual peak loss in 100,000 rounds = -62.50

So 93.45% of the time you can expect to quit at some point within the session with a profit - even if it's only 1 unit.
The second figure (average peak gain within a round) would suggest that if you get a profit of 9 or 10 units in the session and continue to play on you are making a bad bet, statistically speaking.
The final figure (actual peak loss within a round) suggests that a bankroll of 60 - 70 units is sufficient.
The program is work in progress and I intend to add more analysis including the number of "reversals" within a session, a reversal being a swing from +ve to -ve balance or vice versa within a session. In theory by knowing the average number of reversal for a system you can then keep track of them and quit on a +ve balance if you have "used up" your reversals in a session.
I've experimented with various systems and the best so far in terms of being able to make a profit at some point (ie; the lowest % of sessions without making any profit at all throughout the session) is the Maxim principle. Note that according to the author this is only meant to be used for craps and also I haven't simulated any of the exit points.

Using a maximum stake of 50u:

number of sessions always in a net loss = 261 (0.26%)
average peak gain within a round = 63.98
average peak loss within a round = -156.53
actual peak gain in 100,000 rounds = 122.00
actual peak loss in 100,000 rounds = -1692.50

A 99.74% chance of quitting with a profit, but of course this is offset by the hugely increased bankroll necessary and attendant risk involved.
For a maximum stake of 10u (ie; the progression is 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) and start over when you get to the end.

the results are:

number of sessions always in a net loss = 1131 (1.13%)
average peak gain within a round = 43.46
average peak loss within a round = -64.63
actual peak gain in 100,000 rounds = 121.50
actual peak loss in 100,000 rounds = -412.00

From my testing so far it seems that most volatile systems (those that offer more "reversals") are those that incorporate both -ve and +ve progressions (like the Maxim principle).

Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: ttt on June 23, 2010, 06:05:47 AM
Belgian,

Just because some French guy couldn't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

And I ask not nor seek any special deals. I'd even play a 00 wheel if we had
actual data such as Hamburg as I am that dead sure.
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: lazarous on June 24, 2010, 11:04:27 PM
Ok,Ttt, I respect your point of view. It's sure that for a guy entering a casino twenty times a year, with the objective of plus 1 per day, a Marty of only 7 terms could be sufficient. The probability are on his side. But ALL THE DAYS, plus 1, for 365 days a year..... It really means to throw away all my 35 years knowledges of gambler. Why not?I live close to a Casino in Italy and I Know a lot of people (mainly retired) that are all the day at the Casino with + 1/per day as wingoal. A disaster.... Every now and then they tell me that they don't understand... a so modest objective, impossible to reach...! But once again I trust on you....
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: ucdrummer00 on June 26, 2010, 05:40:26 AM
Belgian & all,

Hi, I have been using a similar approach to you when designing methods. For example, there is a very high probability of 20 wins in 80 trials of an even chance. Figuring out how to stay within the table limits and resources of our bankroll when going for those 20 wins is the problem.

It would be desirable to test a method on every possible sequence of events (and programs exist that can create these for you), but in the case above, there are 2^80 such sequences (including those without at least 20 wins). As you can imagine, for 200 trials, the number of possible outcomes is 2^200.

I am curious as to how you went about being able to ensure that your method will be able to ride out the worst of the sequences when going for those 65 wins in 200 trials.

I really like where this thread and the other one related seem to be going.
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Belgian on June 26, 2010, 12:26:11 PM
Hi all,

Thanks for all the replies. I especially want to thank UK for his analysis of 20 million spins or 100.000 sessions of 200 spins. It confirms the theory that you will always find at least 65/135 in 200 spins.

The solution to all the questions I asked here can be found in the other thread Johnson progression roulette system (https://forum.roulette30.com/index.php/topic,9.0.html) by Lazarous, as the discussion is heading into the same direction.

According to the needed bankroll in my experience 1500 units must be enough to survive the most bad ecarts in losing streaks. But opposite to losing strikes of 7 (the most bad one I encountered in all the years starting from 1999 T1 in The Hamburger Permanence, and only 1 time) there are winning streaks of 30 as the 75:25 will pay off very fast and easy.

In some posts here people have the respected opinion that it is rather easy to win 1 unit everyday with the average systems. One must always kept in mind that the permanence of hell can be encountered right from the start and that one loss can consume all previous wins, as you can never see in front, when it is the right moment to stop before you find yourselves in the hole of no return.

The 1 unit is only mentioned to try to find a way to protect ourselves against any possible way of a loss, from that point then you can aim more units, always in the knowledge that a new aim can in most bad expectation takes no less then 200 spins, averaging 5h of play.

If what is proposed here and in the Johnson progression thread is without miscalculations we can draw conclusions that are supposed not to exist:
• 1. There is a mechanical solution to beat the odds (not by changing the odds, but by overcoming the most bad ecards by a rigid progression.)
• 2.  Bet Selection is not of any influence of the final plusresult, f.i it doesn't matter which even chance you are playing, IN THE LONG RUN (is here max 200 spins) you always win.
• 3.There is no way to coming even close to table limits with this progression.

This is to good to be true, but as I see it at the moment , it fits,

regards,
Belgian
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: soccer on June 27, 2010, 09:01:02 PM
Hi All,

I must agree with Ttt, One Unit per day is something that is easily done. The big problem is being satisfied with that ONE unit!
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Hann on June 27, 2010, 10:17:21 PM
Are you willing to disclose the meat and potatoes of this system, Belgian?

So far I haven't been able to understand much.

Many thanks
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: ttt on June 29, 2010, 12:46:14 AM
Not making one unit a day is more of an impossibility than the impossibility
of making one single unit a day.

If we were talking making 100 units...then that would/could be a hard row to hoe.

I suppose that even 10 units on a day where nothing is going your way
could be a very tough grind.

Hell, you probably could get that one unit just by scouring the slot machine
trays for an unretrieved coin or two.  :-\
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Belgian on July 01, 2010, 09:40:30 PM
Hi all,

I am still there but after my last post in this thread the discussion was continued in The Johnson progression thread.

One can make fun about the "1 unit every day" but if you find a way to come out ahead full proof consistently you beat the game. This 1 unit thing was only meant to avoid losing not being the win goal. When the streaks are very bad, you have to be prepared that 1 unit all there is for the bad day's, after all winning in roulette is not hard, avoiding losing is.

May way of play is explained in The Johnson thread, I start with the aggressive way averaging about 1 unit/ 2.5 spin on 90% of the runs. My win goal is 15 units/ game, 2 sessions /day. 1 game is average around 35 spins. BUT as soon as things get a little bit though I already stretch the Labby to keep the bets low, as i know i will always reach EOS, and YES on a very, very bad day this can be a session of max 200 spins. (off course till now I never went that far, maximal for the moment is 92 spins)

The moment stretching of the labby is something that is subjective but the critical part, there are no fixed rules, depends also on the bankroll (with 1000 U one could play aggressive for a long time) and the "risks" one wants to take in order to end the session. My advice start with it as soon as you getting to feel uncomfortable.

In general if someone wants to win consistently there are 2 conditions to be met:

1 Play on an event you know it is 100% sure to happen ( or maybe better said which chance is lower then 1 in a billion of spins)
2 How many spins does it take this event to occur maximum and base your progression on it.

There is more then 1 way to achieve this, and I know now, there are more people out there finding solutions based on these principles, but I don't know of any who wants to explain in detail their way of play.

regards,
Belgian
Perkin
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: doc on July 02, 2010, 08:15:30 PM
Hi Belgian:
Think in terms of playing in a live casino and test your method this way:  first qualify the table. Find a section of data with 20-40 spins with a heavy imbalance of one of the even chances. My suggestion is to be more conservative, and use numbers that you know are routinely seen every hour. (Example: 16/4, 25/8 etc.) Better still, would be to extract a section of 20-40 spins out of an actual 200 spin Hamburg data sample.
Essentially, I suggest that you simulate qualifying your table at a live casino by not beginning to make bets until one of these 20-40 spin sections has just finished. Begin playing your Labby method on the opposite chance that has dominated the last 20-40 spins.
In playing this way you will remove 10%-25% of the worst sections of data from the 200-spin sample.
It can turn a 133/67 2 to 1 “nightmare” into a much safer 90/60 3 to 2 game. I think you will find this is an easy test for your Labby and you will not need to bet over 300 units even if you play aggressively. (Please pardon my numbers. I am trying to give a fast easy example to make a point.)
Doc
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Belgian on July 02, 2010, 09:01:22 PM
Hi Doc ,

You suggestions are fine, and could help shortening the games. I agree that you probably don't need a huge bankroll for almost any session then, but encountering a very long session (and thus a large bankroll) will be met on a bad day for sure.

Also interesting is the differential betting principle to combine with as proposed lately in the Johnson thread and playing 3 even chances at the same time, so you can transfer larger losing bets to an "empty" labby, to keep the bets even lower and lessen the ecards, but this also makes the recording a lot more complicated and one will need a lot of concentration.

For me, I do not chart tables anymore, because I know I have the answer to every permanence of all Hamburg years, all tables, every day.

I started playing 2 and a half weeks ago for real , starting with 2 Euro chips (mechanical roulette table) with a Bankroll of 2000 units (4000 Euro). Target for every day 2 times 15 units (2 sessions). I play 3 day's/week. After playing the first week I won 3 times 30 u= 90 u (180 Euro). Second week I increased my unit to 3 Euro. I did win that week 3 times 30= 90 u (270 Euro). This week I play with 6 Euro units. Played 2 days, 2 times 30 u= 60 units (360 Euro). Total now 810 Eur. Tomorrow I will play last 2 games with 6 Euro chips (exactly 12 times 0.50 Euro chips)and then next week I will start with 3 sessions of 10 Euro chips on a table with a live dealer.

I like to build up my bankroll, not only to avoid losing (although I am confident a permanence for this is needed which such horrible runs, not found on Hamburg tables so far), but also at the mechanical roulette table I don't get attention from the pit bosses , I like being unnoticed as long as possible.

I keep my sessions short with 15 unit goal per game, to lessen the influence of the zero (on the mechanical roulette there is no "en prison rule") and also to lower the probability of encountering a bad streak.

One day, I needed 126 spins to end the first game and 121 spins to end the second (largest bet needed 52 units) playing for more then 6 hours, so the sessions are not always that short unfortunately. The best day did end the 2 sessions after 2hours and 15 minutes, including a short break between the sessions.

When everything is going according to schedule then I will have after 10 weeks playing a win of 24.000 Euro. That is my target for the moment.
Higher then 40 Euro/unit is not advisable for me because then I danger reaching table limits on a very bad day.

regards,
Belgian
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Hann on July 05, 2010, 07:39:41 PM
Hi Belgian, I understand if you don't want to reveal the details. I think I got it wrong when I played a 64 zero plus one one labby. I crossed out only one, (instead of two, in this case you would need 129 zeros and one one).

Am I falling behind? Are these characteristics similar to what your playing?
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Belgian on July 09, 2010, 07:42:30 PM
Hi Hann,

I am sure that with all the information I posted in this and the Johnson thread one can develop his own safe strategy. Also information posted by others like Doc and Lazarous is very valuable.

The 64 zero +1 labby was for me just a stage in the development of the current strategy, which always starts with 0,1. The imaginary zero's are still employed, used to stretch the Labby during bad runs, and to be on the safe side, I start using it very quick: better winning after 50 spins, then taking the risk seeing your bets raised like a Martingale which dangers your bankroll and approaching table limits.

Also, I am still trying to finetune the strategy in order to reach EOS more fast, i am convinced it can be done, I have still many idea's left to investigate due to the flexibility of the Labby, it has hundreds of hidden possibilities,

Regards,
Belgian
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: john on December 19, 2010, 09:42:09 AM
Excuse my ignorance, a gave up playing Roulette a long time ago.

A term that is being branded about a lot is 'permanence'. What does it mean.

Thanks
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: kav on December 19, 2010, 09:47:03 AM
Permanence is a series of roulette outcomes.
For example, it can refer to the chart of spins of a specific day on a specific table.

("Personal Permanence" is the chart of the roulette spins a player has bet on.)
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: random on December 19, 2010, 09:48:42 AM
Hi Belgian, I have a question... In your method your reference for analysis is 200 spins... But according to Muck data, there are many others groups of spins where you can get the analysis of minimum hits of any even chance... So, why 200 spins and not 50, or 25, or just 100? Thanks for your reply...
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Belgian on December 19, 2010, 09:49:50 AM
Hi Random,

The 200 spins were taken because then the worst case scenario according the statistics is within the 1:2 range (B versus R) so it fits the Labby.

Of course, if you want to, you can look at 50 spin or 100 spin cuts, but then it will be very hard (if not impossible) to find a progression that overcome the worst ecarts within these spin numbers, without reaching table limits.

regards,
Belgian
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: random on December 19, 2010, 09:51:07 AM
OK, I understand. Thanks for the fast reply... By the way, how is the method working as time goes by (in paper or real)? I mean, do you know how many spins have you played or tested since you began thinking this way, and the final profit in chips since then? Regards, Random
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Belgian on December 19, 2010, 09:52:22 AM
Hi Random,

Maybe it sounds a bit strange but the final strategy as I play it now, I didn't test a lot: I tested it against the worst permanences of Hamburg, given by Muck, and for the rest I tested it against the month of May T9, taking all even chances and played the ones that showed up the least (you can find them in the stats under the permanence numbers).

As I mentioned in a former post I started playing the strategy for real 3 weeks ago. Till now I won 270 units total (9day's, 30 units a day) but the units are not of the same size, because I increase them every week.

regards,
Belgian
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: val on December 19, 2010, 09:55:43 AM
Hi everybody,
I admit that this thread and also "Johnson progression" gave me great expectations...
Idea of 130 Losses and 65 Wins for a sure 1 unit seems to be genial. But... in fact, is just an illusion, because the distribution of L or W. Always will be a problem of decision. Will be a session with large streaks of L (and IF I'll use plenty of 0's) or will be a session who alternate W with L (in this case I'll use just a few terms in my Labby)? We never know...
In the other hand, after we reduce the terms in our Labby to 2, we are in front of a Martingale. I know, if another L occur we could split it again, but
always this game with you and Marty in a same dark place will be actual. Till when? Till our 130L/65W will be 200/135? But this report don't help me!
Anyway, idea to use Labby with many 0's is JUST a Labby preceded by a flat betting.
I hope I'm wrong, but my test make me a skeptic...
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: john on December 19, 2010, 09:57:40 AM
I admit that this thread and also "Johnson progression" gave me great expectations...

Me too, The Johnson thread that is, until I played a modifed version of it. Sad

Thought I was so close to the grail, and was probably as close as I'm ever likely to get. However at the end of the day, there is no edge anybody can get in terms of bet selection. Mathematically OLD (Dragon System) or a wait and capped anti-streak method has merit, but even these are not enough.

Of course I'm referring to Baccarat.
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Belgian 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
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: RouletteRaider 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!
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Hann 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.
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: John on December 22, 2010, 12:24:21 PM
Hann

Ok, but what exactly are you betting on?

Cheers
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Hann 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.
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Belgian 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
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: John 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
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Elt 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
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Duncan 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!  ;D
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 !
Title: Re: Beating roulette with math...
Post by: Duncan 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!