In its usual form, the Labouchere progression starts with string of numbers and aims to make the target by cancelling 2 losses with each win. It can work well, but the stakes get out of hand when you hit losing streaks. One way around this is to break down the strings of numbers (which represent your debt) into smaller "substrings" when the stakes get too high, then work on clearing the substrings. Another way is to use a "divisor" which keeps stakes from getting too high in the first place. The disadvantage is that you need more patience!
The basic idea is to choose a divisor, which is a number greater than or equal to 2 (a divisor of 1 corresponds to the standard labby). Higher divisor = more safety. Using this method involves some work because you need to calculate the current stake from the standard labby string. But it does keep the stakes lower and maintains the same advantage of cancelling 2 losses with each win.
First, a bit of terminology. You need to use what programmers call the "Ceiling" function. In plain English, this just means after dividing one number by another, you round the result UP to the nearest whole number.
e.g. Ceiling(4/3) = 2 because 4/3 = 1.3333 but when rounded up gives 2.
The divisor, call it X, always goes in the bottom part of fraction, and the top of the fraction is the stake which is generated by the standard labby.
The best way to explain is by an example using a divisor of X = 3
1 L 11 stake = 1
1 L 112 stake = 1
1 L 1123 stake = 2 (ceiling(4/3) = 2)
2 L 11234 stake = 2
2 L 112345 stake = 2
2 L 1123456 stake = 3 (ceiling(7/3) = 3)
3 L 11234567 stake = 3
3 L 112345678 stake = 3
3 L 1123456789 stake = 4 (ceiling(10/3) = 4)
4 W 12345678 stake = 3 (ceiling(9/3) = 3)
3 L 123456789 stake = 4 (ceiling(10/3) = 4)
4 W 2345678 stake = 4 (ceiling(10/3) = 4)
4 W 34567 stake = 4 (ceiling(10/3) = 4)
4 L 3456710 stake = 5 (ceiling(13/3) = 5)
5 W 4567 stake = 4 (ceiling(11/3) = 4)
4 W 56 stake = 4 (ceiling(11/3) = 4
4 W *string cleared*
As you see, you only needed a third of the bets won + 1 in order to clear the debt, but with a divisor of 3 your highest stake needed was only 5, instead of 13 if you'd used the standard labby.
If you play around with this, you'll notice that with larger divisors you're left with some units over, and that these accumulate if your bets don't rise above 1 unit. This happens if, for example, you're using a divisor of 5 and you get a series of decisions which don't include 5 or more losses in a row, but the overall number of losses is more than the wins.
I've done a fair bit of testing of this recently. As usual, it's best to be flexible. You could start of using a divisor of 2 and then if the stakes get too high increase it to 3 or 4.
Hi Bayes,
I found this document on my pc that I dowloaded years ago.
Take a look and see what you think.
THE SMALL WINS SYSTEM.
This system was developed over the past 2 years
and has proven to be a useful tool in taking money
from the casinos.
The idea that drives this system to success is not
the betting, but is the idea of winning small portions
of a bet at a time in order to achieve a extremely
high win rate that is never lost.
I have been messing around with this system for 1 1/2
years and came up with the idea 2 years ago.
The system is really simple in essence and when played
following the rules, a player will always win in the
long run, during short run there will be fluctuations
that will be for and against the player (hopefully more
for the player than not).
The goal of this system is to win a small portion of
the bet over a period of spins.
An example would be 1 unit over 4 spins or 1 unit over
5 spins or more. This way the goal will be making .25
in the case of 1 in 4 spins ratio units per spin.
The betting is easily computed through a math formula.
This formula is X/Y.
You start out by placing 1 in the X meaning 1 unit
target to gain.
Y is the amount of spins you want to make that 1 unit in,
it could be 4 spins or more. When you win a bet, you
deduct the winnings from X and deduct 1 from the Y.
When you lose, Y increases by 1 and you add the loss to X.
An exception to the rule above is if a player feels their
bets are too high, then they could possibly add 2 to the
Y instead of 1 which will decrease the next bet.
The goal in this system is to play one of two bets.
The first possible play is EVEN MONEY CHANCES.
The second possible play is 3 DOUBLE STREETS.
Note: when you play with the 3 double streets, you add 3 to
Y on a loss instead of 1.
Note: also start out with 4 times the Y amount you were aiming
for (so if its a 1:4 ratio, it would be 1:12)
The way I have found to be successful is to play for short
term trends but keep in mind the long term. A session can
last a really long time but can also be very short.
For EVEN CHANCES, I look at the marquee and see what even
money bet is coming up the most (r/b, e/o, l/h).
I then play that even money bet in hopes that it will continue
to hit constantly throughout the next set of numbers on the
marquee (play the entire marquee worth of numbers, some hold
10 numbers, some hold 15, casinos will vary).
By playing this way, I have found that making a profit is more
than 50% of the time.
The ways I have found to be successful for 3 DOUBLE STREETS is
by playing a different kind of pattern.
What I do is I look at the marquee and place units down on
the 3 double streets that have hit the most throughout the
board.
You play the entire marquee's worth of plays (like the EVEN
MONEY CHANCES above). I have found that this may only be a
good selection method because it tends to keep hits on the
hot DOUBLE STREETS, but there are times where a DOUBLE STREET
may be hot, but then goes cold. This does not happen too often,
but will happen.
A session is not over until the X closes to 0. It will ALWAYS
close to 0 over time. If you are down on your luck, do not
worry because in time, you will get the good streak which will
wipe out all the units you are down, the betting only prolongs
the time period of losing.
A mini-session will end when you gain your UNIT, the main session
will end when you reach your TARGET.
A play that I find very useful in closing a session early a good
majority of the time is by playing until a 1:1 ratio is met
through the X and Y.
I start my sessions off at 1:7.
Now, the way it works is I play 1 unit, if I lose, I am at 2:8.
Now, I bet the entire X amount as long as it does not go over
the Y value, but only after a win in hope that a second win
will show up due to a hot streak. So, if I lose again, I would
be at 3:9, but if I win after that, it turns to 2:8 then I bet
the 2 units in hopes of a win.
A mini-session closes often with this procedure. It also applies
to the double streets, but just multiply the ratios by 3.
When you reach the 1:1 ratio, you divide the Y margin by 2, then
play as normal, this way when you win you win more units back
at a time and are now FLAT BETTING.
A recommended bankroll is 100 units. Bets will remain low pretty
much throughout the entire game and when they get high, you can
just set them lower by increasing Y. The target is 5-10 units,
what other investments do you know you will make a constant
5-10% return on a daily basis? Probably none, but now here is
one.
This system could also be played through flat betting.
You flat bet the entire marquee amount that is available. With a
flat betting, the bankroll does not need to be more than 20 units
tops. Most of the time you will achieve a flat bet win, and
sometimes it will take a little longer, but in the end, FLAT
BETTING has also proven very effective. I originally started out
with the above progression, but knowing a win is more likely than
50% of the time, I now flat bet. I am for a profit of 2 units
FLAT BETTING 2/20 = 10% of bankroll.
D1.
I shouldnt be here,, great stuff!!! I am doing variations of D"lambert
best of luck
nice configurable divisor tool, link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11.0;attach=4830 (link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11.0;attach=4830)
@ Dave
Looks interesting, can you give us a written example please mate, sounds ideal for a bot to test and calc on the fly, I need to understand it first though.
@Superman,
Mate to be honest with you I have never played it so im not sure,
I put it up as its been on my pc for years and I just wanted to know what Bayes and other members thought of it to be honest.
Im really not sure if it works or not but it might give people with more expirience than me different ideas and views,
D1.
Quote from: D1 on Dec 21, 05:32 AM 2011
THE SMALL WINS SYSTEM.
I see no point in it.
Hi D1,
That system you posted is confusing, to say the least. It's not at all clear how you're supposed to play, and there's no point in guessing. Besides, he says of his bet selection that it wins more than 50% of the time, in which case why bother with the progression? (and trust me, betting that way doesn't win more than 50% of the time in the long term.)
Hi Bayes,
thats one of the reasons why I never played it because I was never sure exactly how to play it.
Thanks for the advice and I have to be honest I do like your method of playing the divisor,
D1.
This is one of the systems in the 302 roulette systems that was floating around the internet a few years ago.
It was titled "Small Wins System".
I never could see any real advantage to the bet method, although I don't see a problem with it either. And like Bayes says, the author never does give us much of a bet selection method other than betting on the dominant color on the marquee.
The basic idea of X/Y is akin to the 6 point divisor or the bet method I posted a while back called a different divisor method.
The author writes as if it's impossible to lose playing this method which we all know is a bunch of baloney. You can lose with any type of bet method.
George
This topic interests me quite a bit, as Labbys have been holding my fascination of late. However, adding your series of wins and losses generates an end result of 0. While I am always glad to not lose anything, will this method actually generate wins? Is it zero because we only started with 1-1 or is it because we lost 9 in a row? Obviously, wins early will add to the BR, but that will be the case with any (every) progression.
I answered my own question and did some basic testing. I had wins of 3 and 4 units with my usual 10x1 Labby. This seemed very stable for those of us who don't have huge bankrolls. I like the stability of the Labby because of the fact you only need 1 win to offset 2 losses. This keeps the winnings down, but also keeps the Labby much more managable. I would feel much more comfortable with some of the bigger bets that come up with the Labby playing it this way. Thanks for the idea!
As always Colbster, its just a MM method, yes a good one but it can still get out of hand, a history like this
WLLLLWWLLLLLLLWWLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLWLLLLL
Will get your bet size up, just be careful, we have tested many wyas of using a labby over the last few years and there is always a bad run that can create high bet values.
Colbster,
Superman's right (when's he ever wrong?)
Starting with 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --> to infinity, creates a simple D'Alembert of +1/-1 until the original 1's are cleared. Also, note that we aren't really offsetting 2 losses with a win until we have eliminated the original 1's since they weren't the result of losses. The purest form of the labby is to start with no line. We bet 1 unit as long as we win. Once we lose, we start our line with that lost unit. Since we only have 1 number, we bet 1 unit again. If we win, we break even. If we lose, we have 1 1 and we bet 2 units just like a normal labby.
This gives us a real recover 2 losses with 1 win situation.
The killer, and it's something we can't do a thing about, is to have a heavy loss series right at the end of our string when our bets are the largest, usually, and when we would have recovered with a few wins but instead take a plunge because losses came.
Still, according to Egalite on the baccarat forum, he swears that he wins will controlled labbies. Sounds like he breaks his bets up according to 3 sections. He has different progressions for each section. He models the Star system that has a pre-progression phase and then a progression stage. I haven't taken the time to understand how he does it completely since he also adds some personal on-the-fly decisions that can't be quantified.
It might be worth a look if you are interested in labbys.
GLC
dear george
once you told about the reverse labby. looking forward to hear it more.thanks.
catalyst
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
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.
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.
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.