• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

Almost every system has been tested many times before. Start by learning what we already know doesn't work, and why.

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Labby with divisor

Started by Bayes, Dec 21, 03:50 AM 2011

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GLC

Catalyst,  I must remind you that you were the one who provided a link to an excellent site that discussed the reverse labby in great detail.  That's about all I know about it.  I haven't been a fan of the reverse labby and so haven't study it much.  Sorry.


Bayes, I have been playing around with this idea of yours and am much impressed with how versatile it is.  with time and patience, you can control your units with this method to prevent many a losing session.


And for sure, you can use it to keep bet sizes manageable.  In the worst of situations, it will probably have to be abandoned at a certain stop loss, but what method doesn't?


In the mean time it can keep us in the game waiting for a good enough winning streak to pull us out.


I'm toying with the idea of rounding up to the ceiling until we reach a certain size bet and then rounding down to the floor on larger bet sizes.  This will cost us a unit here and there I'm afraid, but it will also keep our bets smaller. 


Anything we can do to keep bets smaller at the cost of a reasonable unit loss is worth it if it will help keep us from reaching our outer limits.  We have to pay the piper some time.  Nothing will win 100% all of the time.


Thanks again.  Any additional thoughts on this will be more than appreciated.


GLC
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

GLC

I notice that the more often we increase our divisor, the more in the hole we are when we finally clear our labby.  Using your original example and using a 5 divisor instead of a 3 divisor, we end at +2 once the line is cleared.


Next I used a 1 3 5 7 9 increase in the size of the divisor.  So I started betting our 1 unit.  Once lost, I used a 3 divisor for 4 bets then I went to a 5 divisor for 4 bets then a 7 divisor for 4 bets and finally a 9 divisor for 4 bets.  Ended with a -8 unit loss.


My mistake is that I shouldn't increase the size of the divisor unless I'm losing more than I'm winning.  I'll try it one more time with that in mind.


George

PS  Didn't make any difference because the dividend didn't get large enough to cause the quotient to move to 3 units.

I think we should pick a divisor we can live with in all but the worst losing sessions.  Where picking a large divisor like 5 instead of 2 or 3 will be a problem is when we're having a good run of luck.

example of 5 divisor:
L    1      1/5=-1     -1
L    1 1   2/5=-1     -2
W  112  3/5=+1    -1
W  1      1/5=+1     0

example of 1 divisor:
L    1       1/1=-1    -1
L    11     2/1=-2    -3
W   112   3/1=+3    0
W   1       1/1=+1    +1

Doesn't seem like much, but over the course of a night the units can add up.  Will have to see what rule will work the best to limit this disparity.

I've been thinking that we might need to add some extra units when we change to a larger divisor.  This can still keep our bets manageable without causing us to end at too large a minus number.




In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

Bayes

Quote from: GLC on Jan 23, 11:03 PM 2012
Bayes, I have been playing around with this idea of yours and am much impressed with how versatile it is.  with time and patience, you can control your units with this method to prevent many a losing session.

Hi George,

Actually, I can't claim it's my idea. A very similar system is described in Norman Squire's "How to Win at Roulette" (I seem to recall that you have a copy of it - see "The Longest Haul").

It's designed to keep you in the game and get over those long losing streaks, which it does MOST of the time, but as we know, even one occasion when it doesn't can be disastrous.  ::)

In the end, it may not be any better than using a "standard" Labby, and just splitting your strings if/when the stakes get out of hand, but there are times when it can be useful to target a sequence of spins with a pre-defined progression, and this does the job quite nicely.

I'm a strong believer in a "toolbox" approach to playing roulette; the skill lies in selecting the appropriate tool for the task in hand.
"The trouble isn't what we don't know, it's what we think we know that just ain't so!" - Mark Twain

GLC

I recall the section in Squire's book your alluding to.  I never quite understood what he was doing, but now that you present it in a different manner, it's clear.

Unfortunately, I loaned the book to a friend that I only see in passing at the casino and haven't gotten the book back.

It is a good method if you have a very limited bet spread to play with.
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

-