Optimizing Labouchere

I've been using a variant of the labouchere system. As expected, I typically have a bunch of small wins and occasionally a big loss. Gambling recreationally it means most trips to the casino I have a great time and occasionally I lose to my stop loss. I only ever gamble what I budget to my hobbies.

Things I have done in adjusting this system:

1/5l1 Labouchere System - (1 unit starting line)/(5 losses add 1 unit to start of line)

1) Make safer starting lines.
-My line is almost always 1 unit and nothing else. On 2 losses becoming 1,1,2. A win on either of the first 2 games played is a win. A win on the third is considered a push that causes breakeven with the starting line still there.

2) Add a 1 to the beginning of my line after ever 5th loss.
-This reduces the upside swings by lowering the left side addition. Especially helpful in long strings without resolution. The second benefit is during a long string I also have more units that I will eventually (hopefully) win back thus increasing profit per hour on winning hours. Example: starting with 5 losses in a row and a start line of 1, it would look like this 1,1,1,2,3,4,5. I've adjusted the "loss 1" number around and checked the math.

My question: Are there methods to optimize a labouchere system to minimize the big losses and extend play time? Is there a way to test different initial lines for risk of catastrophic loss(I define as 1 loss of the table limit from starting with min bet). This is also difficult to count as there are variances of loss based distributions of win/loss patterns. I typically base my numbers on worst possible outcome compared to total # of losses on a winning string.

Any ideas for calculation or links to anyone who has worked out some of these numbers would be much appreciated.

One of the indicators I use to adjust my loss # is the needed win % to resolve a cycle with "X" number of losses and "L" being how often you add a 1 for number if losses.

1/5l1

(X + 1+(X/L))/2 = # of wins needed to resolve

*On X/L round down to nearest whole unit.

(# of wins)/(# of total wins needed + total losses) = percentage needed

Example

Cycle with 27 losses before resolution.

(27+1+(27/5))/2
(27+1+5)/2

16.5 = 17 wins to resolve
17/(27+17) = 38.63%

This is higher than what you would need to resolve a true labouchere, but you have effectively limited some of the downside potential of geometric growth.

I hope this gives a little clarity as to the thought track I am on.

Quote: LeBouchleon

I've been using a variant of the labouchere system. As expected, I typically have a bunch of small wins and occasionally a big loss. Gambling recreationally it means most trips to the casino I have a great time and occasionally I lose to my stop loss. I only ever gamble what I budget to my hobbies.

Things I have done in adjusting this system:

1/5l1 Labouchere System - (1 unit starting line)/(5 losses add 1 unit to start of line)

1) Make safer starting lines.
-My line is almost always 1 unit and nothing else. On 2 losses becoming 1,1,2. A win on either of the first 2 games played is a win. A win on the third is considered a push that causes breakeven with the starting line still there.

2) Add a 1 to the beginning of my line after ever 5th loss.
-This reduces the upside swings by lowering the left side addition. Especially helpful in long strings without resolution. The second benefit is during a long string I also have more units that I will eventually (hopefully) win back thus increasing profit per hour on winning hours. Example: starting with 5 losses in a row and a start line of 1, it would look like this 1,1,1,2,3,4,5. I've adjusted the "loss 1" number around and checked the math.

My question: Are there methods to optimize a labouchere system to minimize the big losses and extend play time? Is there a way to test different initial lines for risk of catastrophic loss(I define as 1 loss of the table limit from starting with min bet). This is also difficult to count as there are variances of loss based distributions of win/loss patterns. I typically base my numbers on worst possible outcome compared to total # of losses on a winning string.

Any ideas for calculation or links to anyone who has worked out some of these numbers would be much appreciated.

Hi and welcome to the forum.
You didn't say, but I guessed you were applying this to roulette even money bets?

Some nice graphs out on 'tinterweb

The only four things I can add are...

The house edge cannot be overcome by wagering systems.
Wizard discusses similar systems here
OnceDear's Rule of Thumb applies
The house edge still cannot be overcome by wagering systems... or stop losses.

It's a fun way to lose money and if that floats your boat, then 'fill yer boots'

ps. my favourite progression on even money bets is 1,2,3,3,3,3 (multiplied by whatever min bet is)

Thanks for the welcome!

Correct, even money bets. Unfortunately I like watching a little ball spin round and round..... House edge deters me though. I've played more live blackjack than any other table game followed by craps then roulette and baccarat. It all depends on my mood and how much time I have to play. Currently looking at how the betting structure has to change for betting banker. Less likely to have a losing streak, but you need to bet a little more at times to compensate for banker 5%.

I understand completely the effect of House Edge and that gambling is a losing proposition. As to my records I am down as a gambler though only a small amount. I am under no illusion that I am going to get rich quick. That's what Amway is for!

To my understanding this site is about doing your best to increase your chances of winning/increasing the amount of time you have fun while gambling.

Everyone uses some kind if system even if that system is flat betting or chaos. For those that like the labouchere, like myself(and maybe you??) my goal is to give them more information to consider when choosing how to bet.

Quote: LeBouchleon

Thanks for the welcome!
...
To my understanding this site is about doing your best to increase your chances of winning/increasing the amount of time you have fun while gambling.

Everyone uses some kind if system even if that system is flat betting or chaos. For those that like the labouchere, like myself(and maybe you??) my goal is to give them more information to consider when choosing how to bet.

To be honest, there are a fair few maths purists here who would ruthlessly mock any suggestion of playing a Marty or other progressive. There will be no shortage of members willing to show you the error of your ways.

Some members actually make a living wagering (cleverly)

There's just a few here who accept that such bankroll management can add to the adrenaline rush and potential addiction that goes with it even though it's a long term losing proposition. I'm in that camp.

Then there are a few fools who just know that their system is a sure fire winner. We mock their misguided posts and such threads are pretty hostile and peppered with suspensions $:o)

Don't take offence at those who will be along shortly.

If you are enjoying the game, then you are already winning.

And those folks will be off-topic. I'm pretty sure I play against the same house edge that they do. I'm also thick skinned and love a good laugh so even if there are some off-topic posts here, I'm not worried.

Hopefully, someone will have some input on my question though. My thought is not all systems are created equally.

Also, as a recreational player my main concerns are what percent of my trips end up positive and average play time per $100 buy-in. We are all going to lose the same percentage mine just happens in the course of a couple out of a hundred trips. To each their own.

Have you ever thought of a (0-1) starting series? That would keep initial loss low.
How would you keep track at a bj game without pen and paper?
Have you given any thought to a series built around craps pass or don’t pass?
What is your thoughts on D’Alembert vs La Bouchere?

I have. It gives a buffer and is more conservative than just a 1. this has to do with my ultimate question of how do I compare variance of different starting lines.

most games ill use chips to keep track of chip losses and number of losses. Unless I'm drinking or counting I can pretty well track it in my head. I've heard that a lot of places don't care if you do write things down, but in casinos I have not actually tried.

Pass/don't - is this in regards to laying odds? If it's not then you can use the same system. With odds, it becomes tricky. I don't have anything that's worth taking into a casino. The variability on BET size is not as straightforward with don't and there is potential for a lot higher swing in invested money. If I'm going to be betting don't odds I'm going to be doing flat bets without progression.

My 1/5l1 often looks like d'alembert. D' is a bit more conservative on your bankroll but takes a higher winning percentage to profit. I like knowing it only takes 40% win rate to profit. If I don't have a reasonable bankroll to overcome the variance 98% of the time I wait until I do.

I suggest that you stop using it. It's one of the worst betting systems.

Quote: BlackjackLover

I suggest that you stop using it. It's one of the worst betting systems.

really? You probably as all others here could not explain how it works unless you NOW google it.

Quote: DeMango

really? You probably as all others here could not explain how it works unless you NOW google it.

It is one of the worst betting systems. Hint: Knowing how it works doesn’t matter. Knowing that it loses money does matter. (That’s the only thing that matters.)

Quote: RS

It is one of the worst betting systems. Hint: Knowing how it works doesn’t matter. Knowing that it loses money does matter. (That’s the only thing that matters.)

So what's the "best" betting system? Not bet at all? That's usually Bob Dancer's response to any situation that doesn't make long term money. But not everyone gambles for a living either.

I could be wrong, but I think LeBouchleon isn't trying to prove his betting pattern reduces the house edge over all others.

If a betting pattern increases a recreational gambler's enjoyment, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Quote: tringlomane

If a betting pattern increases a recreational gambler's enjoyment, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I agree. It's a good thing IMHO.

After all, this betting system does not make the house edge any worse.

Average Cost of playing = house edge x total action

If he can reduce his total action with some sort of money management, then why not, especially if he can get a little extra excitement. A bit like playing monopoly for real money, but with cents instead of dollars. Makes the risk more real and more fun, but not too dangerous.

Of course, this is the attitude of a recreational gambler, which is what the OP said he was ( as am I sometimes )

There's somebody that understands!

Also, I think that any sort of program that would be used to calculate the best labouchere would have to be able to be adjusted for length of starting sequence, numbers in the sequence, order of numbers in sequence, and any adjustments like what I make in adding a unit every x number of losses.

I'd be very interested if someone could program a way to alter those variables and check expected variance. How do the factors above affect frequency of ruin/hitting table limit, expected units won per hour if no ruin, average # of rolls/tests before resolution and so on.

If I walk into a casino with $100 how long could I expect to playing "x" game while wagering "y" amount on lowest odds bet. Depending on how long I want to play this could be good info.

On the topic of recreational gamblers: I was recently in Vegas for a work conference. 7 of my coworkers went out to gamble. 1 knows blackjack strategy and ended up down 300(his limit), 1 knows blackjack strategy and broke even, 4 had no idea what the hell they were doing and lost between 100-200 each in an hours time. I, the 7th, played 2 hours of blackjack and 6 hours of roulette over twice the length anyone else played while coming out having doubled my money. Yes, it was a lucky day for anks to bankroll management and knowing strategy. That day was just not the day that I lost my full buy-in.

My point: many many many people gamble without knowing odds from a hole in the ground. If I can teach someone how to calculate the bet they should start with and a simple progressive betting model then it's less likely I'll be playing by myself an hour in.

People know so little about gambling on these work conferences that are so common. I'd like to see a survey that asks "how much are you going to lose in Vegas?".

Quote: RS

It is one of the worst betting systems.

Compared to what? I take your ignorance as a personal insult. No system survives 300 years or so that is “worst”

Quote: OnceDear

If he can reduce his total action with some sort of money management, then why not, especially if he can get a little extra excitement. A bit like playing monopoly for real money, but with cents instead of dollars. Makes the risk more real and more fun, but not too dangerous.

If that's the goal, I don't think that a betting system is needed. You can flat bet and increase the bet size whenever you want. It's easier than using a betting system because you don't need to memorize anything.

Quote: tringlomane

So what's the "best" betting system? Not bet at all? That's usually Bob Dancer's response to any situation that doesn't make long term money. But not everyone gambles for a living either.

I could be wrong, but I think LeBouchleon isn't trying to prove his betting pattern reduces the house edge over all others.

If a betting pattern increases a recreational gambler's enjoyment, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

All betting systems are equally bad because they lose an equal amount of money per dollar wagered. If you want to make random sized bets or stick to a strict "system", it doesn't matter. If you want to use a system, go ahead.

Quote: DeMango

Compared to what? I take your ignorance as a personal insult. No system survives 300 years or so that is “worst”

They are all equally bad. This is known.

Quote: RS

They are all equally bad. This is known.

Define bad?
( I'm not disagreeing )

Quote: tringlomane

So what's the "best" betting system? Not bet at all? That's usually Bob Dancer's response to any situation that doesn't make long term money. But not everyone gambles for a living either.

I could be wrong, but I think LeBouchleon isn't trying to prove his betting pattern reduces the house edge over all others.

If a betting pattern increases a recreational gambler's enjoyment, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Someone could just choose to get an equal amount of enjoyment out of a free online roulette game. That would give the player an equal amount of enjoyment and much more profits. That "system" would be far superior to almost anyone discussed here.

For it to be bad it would have to increase the negative .ev of the bet. If that cannot be proved then it would be really stupid to call it a bad system.

Why do so many people keep wanting to argue rather than answer my question? I wish I could mute all irrelevant posts. Anything having to do with hating on betting systems is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is there are people that will use betting systems. Instead of being divisive, maybe try helping that group of people get the most out of their gaming experience given THEY WILL BET AND THEY WILL BET USING A SYSTEM. This post is about an adaptation of the labouchere in particular.

Mango I'll save someone the time of responding. According to the wizards math, which is accurate, no one will have a worse house edge. They will tend to lose more per hour due to the increase in average bet size. On a true martingale a player would lose about 4 times as much per hour. They would also gain 4 times the t that comps are worth betting the house for.

The best use of a system is to reduce variance in a positive.ev situation. How you find that is up to you, but if prying eyes want to know why you are doing well, it’s very easy to point at the system! My drug of choice is D’Alembert.

Quote: LeBouchleon

Why do so many people keep wanting to argue rather than answer my question?

Because a lot of this forum enjoys arguing. Especially in the Trump thread.

And yes betting systems are basically panned here and are argued against vigorously because most people on here that begin these threads claim their system is a long term winner...

Quote: LeBouchleon

Why do so many people keep wanting to argue rather than answer my question?

To answer your question, there is no way to optimize the cancellation system. It's already optimized. Adding more units will make the system less effective. Also, it's an illusion that adding more units will make you win more money. As long as you keep playing, you can win more money. The numbers you add or remove are irrelevant. They simply represent the amount you'll bet next time. But if you mean that you want to play longer, you can use the D'Alembert system.

Anyway, not all betting systems are equally bad in the short run. Some betting systems are worse than others. The cancellation system is a very bad system because the idea is flawed. In order for it to work, the winning percentage must be at least 33.34%. This is bad. In the short run, it's not uncommon that the winning percentage will fall far below 33.34%. For example, when you lose 10 rounds in a row at any point, the winning percentage of that period is 0%. Your overall winning percentage doesn't matter. If you make 1,000 bets and win 500 times, your winning percentage is 50%. After that if you make 100 bets and win only 25 times, you can be ruined depending on your average bet size even if the overall winning percentage is about 47.73%.

There are absolutely ways to optimize the labouchere. Did you read the first post? Things like "adding more units" as you suggest is a bad choice. If that is true then you would be optimizing by having as few units as possible. With longer sequences you are less likely to complete the sequence making it worse. So to have smaller bets and a shorter sequence would make this better. Aka that would optimize it.

What if you add 0s to the sequence? Also lowers risk of hitting table max on compounding losses. That would be optimizing.

Also for your example of 100 bets with 25 losses, doesn't mean you would be ruined. It depends on the order of the wins/losses. In fact, it's quite likely that your total loss wouldn't even reach 350x your starting unit. That would also be very rare to see and would fall under the 2-5% of lost sessions which is expected. To add on to that, I never said labouchere is a winning strategy so for you to try to argue against it being a winning strategy is pointless. No one is arguing against you.

My style - bet as long as I can with a single buy-in and bank any winnings that put me over 1x my buy-in. With 3 hour sessions the majority of the time you will walk away in the positive.

I'm not saying that it's not a winning system. I said that it was one of the worst systems. Not sure why you think that this is an argument. It is just a statement.

Guess I'm going to have to start quoting you instead of replying. I noticed you also added the "not all betting systems are equally bad in the short run" when you edited your post and took out that it's a losing system. I'm sure we could all benefit from retroactively changing our arguments when we are called out. I appreciate that though because it seems lots of people here just want to argue regardless if they are being helpful or not.

I will say that it's not a winning system. Math shows that. I will say it's a heck of a lot of fun for those times before the ruin run. (I've yet to hit ruin with labouchere, still on my up run!) Lifetime I am still down from before I knew how to make good bets, regardless of if I had been using any sort of bankroll management. I used to have the gamble until 0 bankroll much worse than any other.

Quote: LeBouchleon

Guess I'm going to have to start quoting you instead of replying. I noticed you also added the "not all betting systems are equally bad in the short run" when you edited your post and took out that it's a losing system.

I only rephrased that sentence. Not sure if a moderator can see the edit history. I don't understand why you have to lie.

Quote: BlackjackLover

I only rephrased that sentence. Not sure if a moderator can see the edit history. I don't understand why you have to lie.

.... Ok, rephrase..... retroactively change what you said....6 one half a dozen the other. I much prefer your edited post so I am thankful.

Do you have any beneficial ideas on optimizing the labouchere system?