I've search everywhere for a file to simulate RevLab. Could not find any, so I gave myself this challenge: will try to create one with Excel (wish me luck!). Found a web site to simulate but parameters are too narrow.
Do some VB player use RevLab progression on half the wheel, or even a smaller sector ( I suppose the prog can apply to other than ECs...).
Rev lab usually applied to an even chance, so would be tricky to do with sector betting. There must be some way though with a bit of thought. Could do it on a voisins de zero or tiers principle, and don't need to play every spin.
I have simulated rev lab in BASIC. It's on an old hard drive somewhere. I may try and dig it out if I can find it. I think I simulated on odd/even as that's easy to test but high low even easier. Just INT(RND*37) and a seperate subroutine for 0 if that comes up.
Yes, if one is able to bet on half the wheel and use the RevLab prog, a good VB is a better winner than ECs. About Voisins, Tiers and Orphelins, a reverse Labouchère adapted to 2:1 ratio is possible.
General, when you play RevLab, you stick to ECs or you manage to apply to sector?
Oh, and by the way, I got the Excel RevLab done yesterday night. Was easier than I thought. If anyone sees a bug, mention. Or wishes modifs.
Bigbroben
Check the normal sequence of reverse labby against the assumption of 3 to 1, that is 3 streets.
The normal sequence will be 1-2-3-4 and then -5- and so on.
Rx has it in systems, but I can not change the bet selection there.
Quote from: Bigbroben on Jan 20, 09:22 AM 2019
General, when you play RevLab, you stick to ECs or you manage to apply to sector?
Did general say he uses REvLab?
If he did, Bingo. This proves that he’s system is a loser and not a true AP.
A true AP doesn’t need to use any kind of progression.
So congratulations for the mess and bullshiting we have always heard
Maybe I described it a little badly.
The idea is that progression will increase the steps as for EC, and it will play bets with 3; 1 ratio.
It will require a little calculation.
Zero will kill it anyway, but the results may be more interesting than the normal EC play
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Jan 20, 09:41 AM 2019
Did general say he uses REvLab?
If he did, Bingo. This proves that he’s system is a loser and not a true AP.
A true AP doesn’t need to use any kind of progression.
So congratulations for the mess and bullshiting we have always heard
It means sometimes he's just playing for fun, instead of keeping concentrated, especially if it's noisy around, or if playing with friends.
Don't be too quick to dismiss...
It's ok to play a game just
to play.
He only said he played Reverse Lab for fun. And why not, it would be a good diversion from his normal play or if he didnt have the right conditions.
Quote from: ozon on Jan 20, 09:51 AM 2019
Maybe I described it a little badly.
The idea is that progression will increase the steps as for EC, and it will play bets with 3; 1 ratio.
It will require a little calculation.
Zero will kill it anyway, but the results may be more interesting than the normal EC play
Don't know exactly as for 3:1 ratio progs, but for 2:1 (Doz, Columns), I am doing this:
A pair starting sequence ( 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4 is what I'd start with, 20u).
Bet half the sum of both ends. (1+4)
On a win on first spin (+10), write twice half of net wins at the end. (1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5)
On a loss, erase both ends (1,2,2,3,3,4)
On a win on 2nd spin (net+5), write twice half of net wins at the beginning ( round it down: 2,2,1,2,2,3,3,4).
So on. Did not test thouroughly, but it is somewhat more adapted.
You could play tiers plus orphans versus neighbours of zero with little modification. Could only play on some spins though.
Reverse Labby is interesting because....
We all know EC bet selection makes no difference long term playing either flat or any negative progression.
But if one were to bet Red only when using the Reverse Labby then one could only have a big win if and when Red streaked.
If one however were to always bet the last but one colour outcome then they could win big whenever Red,Black or chops streaked.
So I am suggesting that the Reverse Labby is an example where bet selection does make a difference.
I'm probably wrong though and would welcome a mathematical proof :)
Bet selection doesn't make a difference because what happened one or two or three or ten spins before has no bearing on the current or future outcomes. Playing rev lab, you can play lines on both red and black at the same time and if the colours come out roughly even as happens a lot of the time you'll steadily lose both lines. Then when one colour gets a 2 to 1 advantage you'll get a decent win while losing a small amount on the other line. But over a large number of trials you'll be down, by the time you've factored in losses to zero, and losses of all the previous lines.
All you're ever doing is making a series of independent bets on an even chance, but investing previous winnings to make some bigger bets if you get the opportunity.
The only way to win, is get lucky short term on an even chance that shows a 2:1 superiority and then cash in. Long term, as suggested by Bigbroben you may overcome the house edge if you can get an edge on the current spin using late betting and sector play. But since sector play is no good for even chances, you'll need another staking system.
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Jan 20, 09:41 AM 2019A true AP doesn’t need to use any kind of progression.
AP doesn't need progression. That doesnt mean we dont use it.
Without an edge, progression is just different size bets on different spins. With an edge, it's the same thing, but you are more likely to compound winnings than go bust.
Does anybody knows what was the table limit in ''13 against the bank''?
I could look it up and tell you but unfortunately someone borrowed my copy and never returned it! I think you may be able to get it for free online at one of those dodgy file sharing places.
But from memory his series went into the 100's so it may have been something like 500 or 1000 francs.
He was obsessed with making a bet which went over the table limit due have previously being burned by not being able to continue his martingale or split martingale activities beyond the table limit.
On some of his lines, they were quite valuable but the bet to be made summing the outside figures did not reach the limit. Personally, I would have cashed in and started a new line at that stage.
When I simulated it, I had a line of code to check what the total value of the series was, and at the beginning of the run, an option to say at what value you would like to cash in and start a new line. All of the options were losing in the long run, but interesting to see how your bankroll could vary with different strategies.
The more I think about it, the more I reckon it was 500 francs. This makes sense because his original line was 4 3 2 1 which means initial bets of 5 francs which was probably the table minimum bet on the outside chances.
I also seem to remember he had lines like 220 240 but he couldn't cash in because 460 would not be greater than 500. So they had to bet once more, which lead to them risking losing their fragile line worth 460.
500 is good for a table minimum of 5 as it allows doubling 7 times, typical for a bigger casino.
Yes it makes sense.
A lower table limit does limit the potential gains i.e. the potential recovery.
In the simulations I ran, with 500-spin blocks, 21% did reach a maximum betting of 500.