Beating roulette with math..

[aleks06]

hey Fripper, It's good to see you back.

I will post tomorrow the session 11 with 15 zeros. I've been occupied these days can't finish it before.

I will start playing tomorrow or after tomorrow for real I had to activate my moneybookers account.

[GLC]

Fripper,  Thanks for your response.

Here's another thought.  Can we figure out a way to begin our labby per the normal way, with no zeros.  As we all know, at least 70% of the time a labby that starts with a 1 with the goal of winning 1 unit, ends within a very few bets.  Then, on the ones that don't win within a given range, can we then incorporate multiple zeros and go into our extremely safe grinding mode to prevent losses?

George

[GLC]

I've been looking back over some of the posted sessions.  By the way guys, thanks for all that hard work.  I for one know that it's very time consuming to do that much testing.   I notice that it's not that uncommon to get to 000000000112222 and then clear it up pretty quickly or if necessary take  up to 100 spins.  So, what if we played a regular labby and if we got to something like 11234 or so, we could just add however many zeros we want to start playing this new method.  Maybe 9 zeros so it will look like 0000000001121222 and we can clear this off without so much risk of going into really big bets.  I know that anytime we get to the end of the line and are betting larger numbers, a bad run can skyrocket them no matter what we do.

It looks like we can treat the zeros as a safety brake like Lanky's 6 point divisor safety brake.  Anytime our bets start getting too high, we can just add some more zeros.

[Fripper]

@aleks06
Ok, I will look forward to your results

@GLC
Yes maybe we can adapt to each session. But for me I think that I will follow my rules every time, because otherwise I maybe will forget something and do errors. That may also be a personal choice. As we said earlier, there are endless of possibilities within the labby.

One thing that I think is important is:
Don't always split your figures to another EC after two series of 4, if you have many zero's left you maybe can wait until 3 or 4 series of 4.
I think this is crucial because we always want to play our chosen EC because there we have the logic in this method.

[Bayes]

I'm inclined to agree with George. In my opinion, it's better to "make hay when the sun is shining" rather than be forever anticipating the storm. Yes, we know the storm will come eventually, but from my testing it seems that you will make more profit overall by setting yourself a maximum stake, and when things turn nasty, just keep plugging away until the storm subsides.

Here's a session of 200 spins I just played -

[attachimg=#]

This was about as bad as it gets; only 70 wins in 200 spins (a z-score of -3.86). Initially, I set myself a max stake of 20 units, then, as the wins came in, I let this increase to 60 units (this was the highest stake  placed in the session). As you can see it all came good after 352 spins.

I'm in no doubt that this can be done. I know that Perkin (Belgium) succeeded in making a consistent profit over several months, but that was playing in a B & M casino, and he eventually had to give it up because his health was beginning to suffer. So realistically,  you would need to play online and preferably on an RNG (for speed), alternatively get a bot to do all the work for you. 

P.S. I'll be uploading the "Sequence Analyzer" you see in the screenshot in a few days. Although I say so myself, it's an awesome tool for testing systems and getting stats.

[Blood Angel]

P.S. I'll be uploading the "Sequence Analyzer" you see in the screenshot in a few days. Although I say so myself, it's an awesome tool for testing systems and getting stats.

Looks and sounds great..thanks Bayes.

[Fripper]

Bayes I'm interested in how you play it.

I can agree that if we can we should take as much profit as possible the most of the time and when things go bad we can adjust.

So, how do you adabt to these situations?
Please enlighten us with some ways/rules that you use.
A sample would be nice if you have time.

All improvements is very valuable to me and I think to everyone else who reads this.

What are your guys opinions about this way of play?
With that I mean using a labby.
We have already cleared all the bad sequences posted in here, and also get our bets lower.

Do you think that we are on to something or is it just gamblers fallacy?
I'm not sure what I believe anymore.
So far it seems to good to be true, but maybe I've missed something.

[GLC]

Fripper,

I am anything but an expert on this method although I have a special place in  my heart for the labby bet method.  When I first started playing roulette I stumbled across the labby and thought it was the holy grail.  I used it with a simple even chance bet selection method and won over 1000 units before I hit the streak from hell.  I was splitting large losses into smaller ones left and right and finally when I had give back about 500 units, I decided that I was going to have to take a loss as I was mired at the -500 unit level and just couldn't climb out because I didn't want to bet really large bets.  As I looked back on that extended session, I felt like if i had been able to take out 2 or 3 really bad zones, I would have been winning pretty steady.

I tend to agree with VIP when he points out that it depends on when the bad runs hit.  If you are down to the end of the labby and betting some pretty high bets and then go into another 3+ standard deviation, the bet sizes can sky-rocket.

I am hoping that we can find a way to overcome such an event because it can cause our bets to be so large we can't hang with it and if we take a loss, it can wipe out a lot of small wins.

I don't mean to be negative.  I'm pulling for this system.  But, I have had the same thing happen when I would start with 10 labbys of 11111.  I could add losses on one labby to the labbies with the smallest bet sizes as much as I wanted but toward the end when down to only a couple of labbies left to clear if I had another bad S.D., I would find myself in the hole more than I had started out to win which was 50 units.  Not every time, but often enough to make it not profitable.

Good Luck,

George

[GLC]

VIP,

Way back at the beginning of this topic you posted that you had come up with a method of your own based on this idea and was very pleased with it.  I wanted to ask you then if you would share your method with us, but got side-tracked and forgot to.  Now I remember and am asking if you would mind sharing with us if it's still holding up for you?

Thanks,

George

[Tomla021]

its like midas in a way? if you have to go 200-400 spins to make a buck?

[Fripper]

Its like midas in a way? if you have to go 200-400 spins to make a buck?

The worst I have seen so far is +1 unit in less than 100 spins. Never seen it go beyond 100 spins.

[aleks06]

Fripper I have a question for you 

I was wondering what do you think is the best when you split the labby after 2 series of 4.

Do you split the numbers of figures ? like 15,15,15,15 -> new labby is 15,15

or do you think It's better to keep the same numbers of figure like 8,8,8,8 -> 4,4,4,4

What do you think about extend both labby's after this and/or add more zero's ?

I'm just a little bit confused at the moment I'm still looking for the best ratio labby's length / size of bets because sometimes it's better when the labby is not too long. it becomes endless at times...

so do you have a defined plan for this very important part ?

[Bayes]

So, how do you adabt to these situations?
Please enlighten us with some ways/rules that you use.
A sample would be nice if you have time.

All improvements is very valuable to me and I think to everyone else who reads this.

What are your guys opinions about this way of play?
With that I mean using a labby.
We have already cleared all the bad sequences posted in here, and also get our bets lower.

Do you think that we are on to something or is it just gamblers fallacy?
I'm not sure what I believe anymore.
So far it seems to good to be true, but maybe I've missed something.

Fripper, I don't have time to give you a detailed example right now, but basically I'm using the Labby Calc. to "split" bets (which can significantly reduce stakes) and also I add zeros when the stakes get too high. The advantage of the labby is that you cancel 2 losses with each win, but you can't maintain this ratio in bad losing runs, so when things turn bad you have to settle for only cancelling 3 losses for 2 wins, or maybe even flat betting for a while. To start off with a string of zeros seems to me wasteful and inefficient. Most of the time, results are choppy, and a "standard" labby takes full advantage of this, but if you start with 0000000000001 then you are relying on more wins than losses to make a profit, which isn't the norm.

At the moment, the way I'm playing is more of an art than a science. I need to do some more research on the way sequences "even out". This isn't gambler's fallacy, it's a statistical phenomenon called "mean reversion", which is something that every experienced player is aware of, the only difficulty being how to take best advantage of it. 

I can't give a definite set of rules at the moment, but experiment with the Labby Calculator. By adding zeros and splitting, it's easy to set the stakes to whatever you feel comfortable with. For example, if the string currently demands a stake of more than 20 units, but you don't want to go higher than 20, just add a zero and then split (this means you are flat betting), or if you want to increase stakes more gradually, only add a zero every second loss, not every loss. In this way you can get a balance between a standard labby and a reverse labby, which avoids the worst disadvantages of each.

[Fripper]

Fripper I have a question for you 

I was wondering what do you think is the best when you split the labby after 2 series of 4.

I don't always split the labby after 2 series of 4. Example when you have like 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,2,3,3,4,5. If I have had 2 series of 4 at that point I don't split. Sometimes I wait until 4 series of 4 or so, it depends.

Do you split the numbers of figures ? like 15,15,15,15 -> new labby is 15,15

or do you think It's better to keep the same numbers of figure like 8,8,8,8 -> 4,4,4,4

I think that most of the times I keep the same numbers of figures, like your last example. But that's also a choice you have to make and if you feel comfortable with the bets.

What do you think about extend both labby's after this and/or add more zero's ?

I haven't tested with that but I know you have done it before. I have been doing very well without it but maybe I'm wrong.

I'm just a little bit confused at the moment I'm still looking for the best ratio labby's length / size of bets because sometimes it's better when the labby is not too long. it becomes endless at times...

so do you have a defined plan for this very important part ?

Yes, this is an important part and I'm afraid that I can't give you some rules set in stone. It all comes down to your personal choices I believe. You always have to feel comfortable with your bets.

So, I can't give you a defined plan..
But we can make it better together, that I'm certain of.

[Fripper]

Ok Bayes.

I have been testing some with adding more zero's and I get very bad results at times when things are going bad, don't know how you guys manage to do it. I will keep playing with 15 zero's and a one until I find a safer or better way.

I also tested to start with like 6 ones to get more profit when things are choppy and then adapt with more zero's when it gets nasty, but it didn't work either. The bets went like a sky rocket.

Could you provide some more sessions from some other spins because the wiesbaden we have here seems to be invalid?
Maybe run these ones:
link:://rouletteforum.cc/actuals-spins/betvoyager-spins/

Or some from random.org?

It would be nice to see if there's any difference.

Would love to see a excel file or whatever and see how you guys plays it.
Have you tested some of the "horror" sessions with the way you play?

Cheers