Cancellation Blackjack
May 15th, 2012 at 7:32:52 PM
permalink
Greetings,
This is my first post at this website, but I was hoping that someone would be willing to comment if any holes can be found in a betting system which I believe to be viable for on-line Blackjack.
Please keep in mind that it is unlikely for one to be able to employ this system in live casino Blackjack as the memory requirements would be incredible (and you can not have a paper/pen at the table) however, nobody can stop you from having such implements in your own home.
I believe everyone here should be familiar with the cancellation system of betting, (I prefer Labouchere) so please keep in mind that this post takes such familiarity for granted. The system, as you well know, is typically applied to even payout propositions such as Even/Odd in Roulette.
In any event, for the Cancellation System to successfully complete a line requires that a winning percentage of 33.3333334+% be achieved. For example, if a line starts out with five values such as:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2
You will add one value (the first plus the last, which is the amount bet) for every loss and cross out two values for every win. I'm going to steal from the Wikipedia article (which I largely wrote) for a paragraph. I will cite Wikipedia all the same:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labouch%C3%A8re_system
It is theoretically impossible for this system to fail to complete, given infinite time, because it requires a winning percentage less than the probabilistic expected winning percentage. For this reason, it is equally theoretically impossible for the Martingale system to fail to return the original amount bet.
In actuality, however, we are confronted with Table Limits, and most importantly, our own bankrolls.
Table Limits can prevent the Martingale System from completing because it is possible to reach a point where the next bet, as demanded by the system, is not possible to make. The fortunate aspect of Labouchere is that it takes much longer for this to happen.
Let's imagine a theoretical table where the Table Minimum is $2.00 and the Table Maximum is $200. You will see that the Martingale also fails to make the next necessary bet as demanded by the system, given a string of consecutive losses, far quicker than the Labouchere.
With Martingale, you would start with $2 and bet as follows:
2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128
In short, seven consecutive losses wipes you out.
However, if you start with a Labouchere line of:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2
Your bets will go 4, 6, 8, 10,......
You would not fail to make the next required bet ($202) until after 99 consecutive losses. Please keep in mind that these results are NOT typical, and you will usually find yourself making larger individual bets after a series of wins and losses. For example, if all of your 2's are crossed out (and the line has still not completed) the small end of your bet will be, by necessity, a 4 and so on...
Bankroll will often be more of a factor causing failure than Table Limits.
THE SYSTEM:
In any event, the Labouchere can be modified for on-line Blackjack in a fashion that enables two possibilities:
1.) A winning percentage of 33.34%+ will not necessarily be needed to complete the line. The less you HAVE to win, the more often you WILL win.
2.) You can complete the line in a fashion that results in an amount won greater than the sum of the individual line numbers.
The way the system works is that you play the standard Labouchere line, and you apply basic Blackjack Strategy as recommended on this site. (Disclaimer 1) The only difference is that any winnings in EXCESS of the base bet will also be applied to your line. For example, let's say you have a starting line of:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2
The base bet is four units.
Imagine I am dealt a pair of eights and the dealer is showing me a five. I am going to split the eights. The first eight gets a ten-value added to it while the second eight gets a deuce. I'm going to stand on eighteen and double on my ten. The ten that I have doubled gets another ten-card. The dealer flips a ten card for fifteen and draws a nine. The dealer busts.
Your base bet was four, but you split and won on a double. The result is a profit of 12 units.
In this case, the line has completed with one hand and instead of the sum of units (10) the player profit is (12)
***
That's obviously a best case scenario. Just for the sake of providing an example that may be more common, let's say you have a line of:
6, 8, 10, 16, 20
Your bet is going to be 26 units. You play the same hand, except you split and draw two ten values. The dealer busts, in whatever fashion.
You have achieved 52 units won. You would cross out the 20 and 6 anyway, however, the 16 and 10 also results in 26, so you will cross them out as well.
Your new line is:
10
***
There are going to be events where no two (or more) numbers on the line add up to the amount won in excess of the base bet. In such an event, there are two ways you can handle that:
1.) You can use the excess to cross out as many numbers as possible on the low end.
2.) You can subtract the remainder from your highest number and replace it with the result.
The advantage to the first way is that it reduces the necessary winning percentage for the line to complete to a greater extent. However, you are crossing out your smallest numbers which can be used to keep your bets reasonably low in the event of losses.
The advantage to the second way is that, by reducing your highest number, you will also reduce your highest theoretical bet (and future bets) given the current line. I believe this is a more worthy endeavor because it will enable you to avoid hitting the table limit for a longer period of time.
***
One other way to reduce your line with only one win is the fact that a Natural pays 3:2. The same reduction rules apply.
***
The advantage to this system compared to the straight Labouchere is that it will enable the player to complete a line faster (and with fewer wins) than the standard Labouchere line would be completed merely by crossing out the front and back numbers for every win. Furthermore, you are also getting more money out there when the dealer is at his weakest.
Keep in mind, that in the event of an overall loss (even with Splits/Doubles) the amount added to the end of the line will ALWAYS be the amount lost. For instance, if you play a line of:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2
That resulted in:
2, 4, 8, 16, 24
If you double and lose and only add 26 at the back end of the line, then instead of playing the line for a goal of $10 profit, you would be playing the line for a, "Goal," of losing only $16. ($10 (amount desired to win) -$26 (Money over base bet lost) = -$16)
The disadvantages of this system are the same as with Standard Labouchere. Bankroll, Table Limits, and mostly the fact that you will be down amounts greater than $10 with the goal of winning $10 on that line.
***
RESULTS:
I will post more detailed results after I have played 1,000 hands using the Practice Game on this website and basic strategy.
The amount of a single bet may NOT exceed $200. The player's bankroll is $1,000.
I have played 177 hands over 1:45 and am presently ahead $279. I have completed about eighteen lines (Sorry, I don't have my notebook with me at the moment). I have not yet attempted to complete a line and failed by busting my bankroll or the system demanding a bet of $200+. I eventually WILL fail to complete a line. The law of probability says that I must, but after 1,000 hands (if everything is looking good) I will expand my trial to 10,000 hands.
If everything is looking good after that, I may accept the $1,000/$10,000 challenge. I'm not sure. What I am really interested in is obtaining code for this system that way it can be ran for 1,000,000 lines to test its effectiveness.
***
Disclaimer 1: I do not always surrender when the Basic Strategy advises a surrender. If you do surrender, as with anything else, the amount lost should be added to the end of the line. I have not developed a hard-and-fast surrender rule yet, but mathematically, I am only hurting myself by not surrendering when it tells me to, so if anything, not surrendering will make my findings even more valid because I am not playing in the best possible manner.
This is my first post at this website, but I was hoping that someone would be willing to comment if any holes can be found in a betting system which I believe to be viable for on-line Blackjack.
Please keep in mind that it is unlikely for one to be able to employ this system in live casino Blackjack as the memory requirements would be incredible (and you can not have a paper/pen at the table) however, nobody can stop you from having such implements in your own home.
I believe everyone here should be familiar with the cancellation system of betting, (I prefer Labouchere) so please keep in mind that this post takes such familiarity for granted. The system, as you well know, is typically applied to even payout propositions such as Even/Odd in Roulette.
In any event, for the Cancellation System to successfully complete a line requires that a winning percentage of 33.3333334+% be achieved. For example, if a line starts out with five values such as:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2
You will add one value (the first plus the last, which is the amount bet) for every loss and cross out two values for every win. I'm going to steal from the Wikipedia article (which I largely wrote) for a paragraph. I will cite Wikipedia all the same:
Quote:Theoretically, because the player is cancelling out two numbers on the list for every win, and adding only one number for every loss, the player needs to have his proposition come at least 33.34% to eventually complete the list. For example, if the list starts with seven numbers and the player wins five times and loses three (62.5% winning percentage) the list is completed and the player wins the desired amount, if the list starts with seven numbers and the player wins 43,600 times and loses 87,193 times (33.34% winning percentage) the list completes and the player wins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labouch%C3%A8re_system
It is theoretically impossible for this system to fail to complete, given infinite time, because it requires a winning percentage less than the probabilistic expected winning percentage. For this reason, it is equally theoretically impossible for the Martingale system to fail to return the original amount bet.
In actuality, however, we are confronted with Table Limits, and most importantly, our own bankrolls.
Table Limits can prevent the Martingale System from completing because it is possible to reach a point where the next bet, as demanded by the system, is not possible to make. The fortunate aspect of Labouchere is that it takes much longer for this to happen.
Let's imagine a theoretical table where the Table Minimum is $2.00 and the Table Maximum is $200. You will see that the Martingale also fails to make the next necessary bet as demanded by the system, given a string of consecutive losses, far quicker than the Labouchere.
With Martingale, you would start with $2 and bet as follows:
2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128
In short, seven consecutive losses wipes you out.
However, if you start with a Labouchere line of:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2
Your bets will go 4, 6, 8, 10,......
You would not fail to make the next required bet ($202) until after 99 consecutive losses. Please keep in mind that these results are NOT typical, and you will usually find yourself making larger individual bets after a series of wins and losses. For example, if all of your 2's are crossed out (and the line has still not completed) the small end of your bet will be, by necessity, a 4 and so on...
Bankroll will often be more of a factor causing failure than Table Limits.
THE SYSTEM:
In any event, the Labouchere can be modified for on-line Blackjack in a fashion that enables two possibilities:
1.) A winning percentage of 33.34%+ will not necessarily be needed to complete the line. The less you HAVE to win, the more often you WILL win.
2.) You can complete the line in a fashion that results in an amount won greater than the sum of the individual line numbers.
The way the system works is that you play the standard Labouchere line, and you apply basic Blackjack Strategy as recommended on this site. (Disclaimer 1) The only difference is that any winnings in EXCESS of the base bet will also be applied to your line. For example, let's say you have a starting line of:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2
The base bet is four units.
Imagine I am dealt a pair of eights and the dealer is showing me a five. I am going to split the eights. The first eight gets a ten-value added to it while the second eight gets a deuce. I'm going to stand on eighteen and double on my ten. The ten that I have doubled gets another ten-card. The dealer flips a ten card for fifteen and draws a nine. The dealer busts.
Your base bet was four, but you split and won on a double. The result is a profit of 12 units.
In this case, the line has completed with one hand and instead of the sum of units (10) the player profit is (12)
***
That's obviously a best case scenario. Just for the sake of providing an example that may be more common, let's say you have a line of:
6, 8, 10, 16, 20
Your bet is going to be 26 units. You play the same hand, except you split and draw two ten values. The dealer busts, in whatever fashion.
You have achieved 52 units won. You would cross out the 20 and 6 anyway, however, the 16 and 10 also results in 26, so you will cross them out as well.
Your new line is:
10
***
There are going to be events where no two (or more) numbers on the line add up to the amount won in excess of the base bet. In such an event, there are two ways you can handle that:
1.) You can use the excess to cross out as many numbers as possible on the low end.
2.) You can subtract the remainder from your highest number and replace it with the result.
The advantage to the first way is that it reduces the necessary winning percentage for the line to complete to a greater extent. However, you are crossing out your smallest numbers which can be used to keep your bets reasonably low in the event of losses.
The advantage to the second way is that, by reducing your highest number, you will also reduce your highest theoretical bet (and future bets) given the current line. I believe this is a more worthy endeavor because it will enable you to avoid hitting the table limit for a longer period of time.
***
One other way to reduce your line with only one win is the fact that a Natural pays 3:2. The same reduction rules apply.
***
The advantage to this system compared to the straight Labouchere is that it will enable the player to complete a line faster (and with fewer wins) than the standard Labouchere line would be completed merely by crossing out the front and back numbers for every win. Furthermore, you are also getting more money out there when the dealer is at his weakest.
Keep in mind, that in the event of an overall loss (even with Splits/Doubles) the amount added to the end of the line will ALWAYS be the amount lost. For instance, if you play a line of:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2
That resulted in:
2, 4, 8, 16, 24
If you double and lose and only add 26 at the back end of the line, then instead of playing the line for a goal of $10 profit, you would be playing the line for a, "Goal," of losing only $16. ($10 (amount desired to win) -$26 (Money over base bet lost) = -$16)
The disadvantages of this system are the same as with Standard Labouchere. Bankroll, Table Limits, and mostly the fact that you will be down amounts greater than $10 with the goal of winning $10 on that line.
***
RESULTS:
I will post more detailed results after I have played 1,000 hands using the Practice Game on this website and basic strategy.
The amount of a single bet may NOT exceed $200. The player's bankroll is $1,000.
I have played 177 hands over 1:45 and am presently ahead $279. I have completed about eighteen lines (Sorry, I don't have my notebook with me at the moment). I have not yet attempted to complete a line and failed by busting my bankroll or the system demanding a bet of $200+. I eventually WILL fail to complete a line. The law of probability says that I must, but after 1,000 hands (if everything is looking good) I will expand my trial to 10,000 hands.
If everything is looking good after that, I may accept the $1,000/$10,000 challenge. I'm not sure. What I am really interested in is obtaining code for this system that way it can be ran for 1,000,000 lines to test its effectiveness.
***
Disclaimer 1: I do not always surrender when the Basic Strategy advises a surrender. If you do surrender, as with anything else, the amount lost should be added to the end of the line. I have not developed a hard-and-fast surrender rule yet, but mathematically, I am only hurting myself by not surrendering when it tells me to, so if anything, not surrendering will make my findings even more valid because I am not playing in the best possible manner.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 15th, 2012 at 7:33:51 PM
permalink
I am also not a Spambot. Please do not delete my post. It took me nearly an hour to type all of that.
Thank You,
Mission146
Thank You,
Mission146
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 15th, 2012 at 7:36:32 PM
permalink
Not gonna lie. Anything that took you an hour to type, I'm not going to read.
May 15th, 2012 at 7:39:10 PM
permalink
A quick scan of your post shows that you are not utilizing a card counting system... if you are, then you may be able to turn the odds in your favor... if not
Also, please read this page... The Truth About Betting Systems
And this page The Ten Commandments
Welcome to the Forum.
Quote: Wizard of Odds, Commandment #6
Thou shalt not believe in betting systems.
For every one legitimate gambling writer there are a hundred charlatans trying to sell worthless betting systems promising an easy way to beat the casinos. I know it sounds like a cliché, but if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.
Also, please read this page... The Truth About Betting Systems
And this page The Ten Commandments
Welcome to the Forum.
"One out of every four people are [morons]"- Kyle, South Park
May 15th, 2012 at 7:47:11 PM
permalink
Duckmankilla,
I am not the world's fastest typist.
Tiltpoul,
Thank you for the welcome.
It is not possible to use a card-counting system because this system applies only to on-line Blackjack and the deck is re-shuffled after every hand, at least, it is reshuffled in the Practice Game available here after every hand. I also play with six decks.
With all due respect, I have already read both of the pages to which you have kindly linked me.
The question is simply a mathematical one. I'm looking for mathematical problems in my system. I have not run nearly enough trial hands to claim that this system even works. I can claim that it is better, by necessity, than playing Blackjack with Standard Labouchere. That system, by the way, has been demonstrated by the Wizard to essentially be no worse than straight betting.
My system is also not entirely new, I make no such claim. I'm looking to improve upon an existant system and apply it to a casino game (which is darn near 50/50) to begin with and to which, in my observations, it has not been previously applied.
I hope that eventually the Wizard may read my post and see what he thinks about the system. It is difficult to say whether or not he will do that.
I am also not promising anything, nor would I attempt to sell my system, even if it turns out that it works.
In the meantime, I am open to accounting for and attempting to discuss any potential problem that exists within my system. I know that eventually it WILL fail to complete a line. It MUST fail to complete a line. The real question is: How often?
I am not the world's fastest typist.
Tiltpoul,
Thank you for the welcome.
It is not possible to use a card-counting system because this system applies only to on-line Blackjack and the deck is re-shuffled after every hand, at least, it is reshuffled in the Practice Game available here after every hand. I also play with six decks.
With all due respect, I have already read both of the pages to which you have kindly linked me.
The question is simply a mathematical one. I'm looking for mathematical problems in my system. I have not run nearly enough trial hands to claim that this system even works. I can claim that it is better, by necessity, than playing Blackjack with Standard Labouchere. That system, by the way, has been demonstrated by the Wizard to essentially be no worse than straight betting.
My system is also not entirely new, I make no such claim. I'm looking to improve upon an existant system and apply it to a casino game (which is darn near 50/50) to begin with and to which, in my observations, it has not been previously applied.
I hope that eventually the Wizard may read my post and see what he thinks about the system. It is difficult to say whether or not he will do that.
I am also not promising anything, nor would I attempt to sell my system, even if it turns out that it works.
In the meantime, I am open to accounting for and attempting to discuss any potential problem that exists within my system. I know that eventually it WILL fail to complete a line. It MUST fail to complete a line. The real question is: How often?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 15th, 2012 at 7:49:06 PM
permalink
It sounds appealing because it only needs a 33.34% winning ratio for you to come out ahead, however, this is very misleading and appears much better than it actually is.
Consider a martingale for example:-
Bets of 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160. (You will win $10 as with 2 2 2 2 2 in the cancellation system)
Now you only need to win 1 out of 5 hands in order to make a $10 profit - so just a 20% win ratio!!!
In fact, depending on the starting bet and maximum limit you could fix that to be a much smaller win % than 20%.
The bottom line is that you will still be making large bets with both systems at some point ... the house edge still kicks in even if the win ratio looks appealing at first.
Welcome to the forum!
Consider a martingale for example:-
Bets of 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160. (You will win $10 as with 2 2 2 2 2 in the cancellation system)
Now you only need to win 1 out of 5 hands in order to make a $10 profit - so just a 20% win ratio!!!
In fact, depending on the starting bet and maximum limit you could fix that to be a much smaller win % than 20%.
The bottom line is that you will still be making large bets with both systems at some point ... the house edge still kicks in even if the win ratio looks appealing at first.
Welcome to the forum!
May 15th, 2012 at 8:00:47 PM
permalink
Switch,
I appreciate both your post and your welcoming me to this Forum.
I agree with your statements concerning winning percentages. I would counter, however, that for your Martingale example to reach the $200 Limit (and be unable to complete the next bet) requires only five consecutive losses at any time. This will not happen with the Labouchere, at least, not if you start off with five consecutive losses. My argument would be that the reduced liklihood of exceeding the $200 limit offsets the 13.34% difference in necessary winning percentage.
Further, Doubles, Splits and Naturals also offset the 33.34% winning percentage necessary to complete the line to an extent. I don't believe the exact extent can be calculated (except through intensive trial) as the necessary winning percentage will be continuously variable given the number of such hands that come to pass.
In any event, the necessary winning percentage will never EXCEED 33.34%, but it is also rare to complete a line with an actual winning percentage that low. Simply stated, it would be a very long line.
In Blackjack, you may have the same advantages with Naturals because they pay 3:2. Thus, if your Martingale Line is:
10, 20, 40, 80 (loss)
And you get a Natural betting $160, the profit is $240 (on that bet) resulting in an overall Martingale profit $90 as opposed to $10.
However, if you were to Split on $80 and lose both hands, you'd be done.
I think the Modified Labouchere would be found to lose at a lesser frequency.
I appreciate both your post and your welcoming me to this Forum.
I agree with your statements concerning winning percentages. I would counter, however, that for your Martingale example to reach the $200 Limit (and be unable to complete the next bet) requires only five consecutive losses at any time. This will not happen with the Labouchere, at least, not if you start off with five consecutive losses. My argument would be that the reduced liklihood of exceeding the $200 limit offsets the 13.34% difference in necessary winning percentage.
Further, Doubles, Splits and Naturals also offset the 33.34% winning percentage necessary to complete the line to an extent. I don't believe the exact extent can be calculated (except through intensive trial) as the necessary winning percentage will be continuously variable given the number of such hands that come to pass.
In any event, the necessary winning percentage will never EXCEED 33.34%, but it is also rare to complete a line with an actual winning percentage that low. Simply stated, it would be a very long line.
In Blackjack, you may have the same advantages with Naturals because they pay 3:2. Thus, if your Martingale Line is:
10, 20, 40, 80 (loss)
And you get a Natural betting $160, the profit is $240 (on that bet) resulting in an overall Martingale profit $90 as opposed to $10.
However, if you were to Split on $80 and lose both hands, you'd be done.
I think the Modified Labouchere would be found to lose at a lesser frequency.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 15th, 2012 at 8:06:50 PM
permalink
Switch,
I should also like to add that your 20% figure assumes a win on every fifth hand, where my 33.34% figure is a long-run figure.
If you only won 20% of the time, you'd be finished either way, don't get me wrong, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labouch%C3%A8re_system
That's long run. If you were playing Martingale and only won 33.34% in the long run, you'd be finished in a big-time hurry.
I should also like to add that your 20% figure assumes a win on every fifth hand, where my 33.34% figure is a long-run figure.
If you only won 20% of the time, you'd be finished either way, don't get me wrong, but:
Quote:if the list starts with seven numbers and the player wins 43,600 times and loses 87,193 times (33.34% winning percentage) the list completes and the player wins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labouch%C3%A8re_system
That's long run. If you were playing Martingale and only won 33.34% in the long run, you'd be finished in a big-time hurry.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 15th, 2012 at 11:21:37 PM
permalink
The Labouchere doesn't get large bets by having a run of 5 losses to start with. It gets large with choppy patterns, or worse still when you end up with a single number and you end up in a semi-Martingale type situation trying to get back to base.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
May 16th, 2012 at 3:24:08 AM
permalink
OP I know your post took an hour, but even if you took 100 or 1000 hours eloquently describing exactly how to place each bet, it still doesnt explain how you overcome the mathematical fact that each and every bet you make carries about a 0.5% house advantage.
These betting systems are like having a big closed box with 9999 white balls and 1 red ball inside. You select one at random and as long as its white you win £1 for your £10000 bet. As you win £1 again and again you think you have found the holy grail of betting. But eventually you WILL select that one red ball and go bankrupt.
These betting systems are like having a big closed box with 9999 white balls and 1 red ball inside. You select one at random and as long as its white you win £1 for your £10000 bet. As you win £1 again and again you think you have found the holy grail of betting. But eventually you WILL select that one red ball and go bankrupt.
May 16th, 2012 at 5:04:46 AM
permalink
Quote: Mission146Switch,
I should also like to add that your 20% figure assumes a win on every fifth hand, where my 33.34% figure is a long-run figure.
If you only won 20% of the time, you'd be finished either way, ... ... ...
Not exactly, as long as I don't lose 5 hands in a row then I will win my initial wager. So, for example, the sequence:-
LLWLLLWLLWLLLLWLWLLWLLLWLLLLWLLLLWLLLWLLLWLLLLWLLW wins me 12 units with just a 24% hit rate.
The problem is that it is easy to pick an 'average' sequence in order to make the system look good BUT it's the more extreme outcomes (that will come up eventually) that makes all of these type of systems fail.
May 16th, 2012 at 6:41:30 AM
permalink
In my younger days, I gave something like this a try. It seems to work for a while, but as you say, it always fails eventually. You can't beat the beating system challenge with this method, the odds are not in your favour.
Since you asked, the problem with your math is here:
This is (almost) factually incorrect. It IS theoretically possible for the system to fail to complete. You could lose every single hand of blackjack you play for the rest of your life. Then your descendents could continue to lose. There is no law of probability that says that some event has to happen eventually, no law that says that the expectation of events will absolutely regress to the mean.
The only reason I have to say (almost) is your qualifier about infinite time. You can argue that given infinite time, every event happens as long-term probabilities nebulously merge into 1. That is, it is both theoretically possible and theoretically impossible for the system to fail... But since you don't have infinite time, and, truly, infinite time doesn't even exist, I stand by the previous paragraph.
By my personal experience AND by the actual laws of probability, your system does not work.
Learn to count cards if you like BJ.
Since you asked, the problem with your math is here:
Quote: Mission146It is theoretically impossible for this system to fail to complete, given infinite time, because it requires a winning percentage less than the probabilistic expected winning percentage. For this reason, it is equally theoretically impossible for the Martingale system to fail to return the original amount bet.
This is (almost) factually incorrect. It IS theoretically possible for the system to fail to complete. You could lose every single hand of blackjack you play for the rest of your life. Then your descendents could continue to lose. There is no law of probability that says that some event has to happen eventually, no law that says that the expectation of events will absolutely regress to the mean.
The only reason I have to say (almost) is your qualifier about infinite time. You can argue that given infinite time, every event happens as long-term probabilities nebulously merge into 1. That is, it is both theoretically possible and theoretically impossible for the system to fail... But since you don't have infinite time, and, truly, infinite time doesn't even exist, I stand by the previous paragraph.
By my personal experience AND by the actual laws of probability, your system does not work.
Learn to count cards if you like BJ.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
May 16th, 2012 at 2:03:32 PM
permalink
IN ORDER:
TheCessPit,
I agree with what you have said, and essentially had already made the same point, with all due respect. The point that was making was, with the Martingale, five consecutive losses bust you in that scenario. That's independent of any previous successes or losses. With the Labouchere, five consecutive losses will NEVER bust you independently of past events, it is past-event dependent on the extent that you must have that choppy pattern or single-number or basically anything that results in more previous losses than wins.
DealerWins,
I love the username. In any case, I have already acknowledged that the system WILL eventually fail to successfully complete a line. The system MUST fail to complete a line eventually.
With respect to the 0.5% casino edge, that's basically the edge that the casino has assuming the player plays perfectly, but it's something of a straight up number. The goal of this system is not to Quixotically attempt to chop away at the casino edge, but very simply, to put oneself in a position where one can succeed by winning LESS than one should actually win.
The only way this will be absolutely determined is with extensve experimentation, which I will be undergoing. Keep in mind that this is more educational for me than it is any great free money scheme. If it is proven to work, I will certainly adopt it, but it is my love of mathematics and probability that is driving me to try to develop such a system, not money.
Switch,
Good points. I also agree that the Modified Labouchere MUST eventually fail to complete a line. The mathematical question is whether or not the failure to complete the line(s) when compounded will be negated (and more) by the compounded lines that do complete.
DWheatley,
That was an excellent post. I appreciate the thought that went into it.
Keep in mind that I do not intend to throw this system at the betting system challenge right away. I'm actually in the process of tinkering with a couple of things, so the system is far from complete. (Details in my next post) I'm also going to conduct extensive experimentation on my own before I would even consider paying anyone to code this for me, I'm thinking 10,000 hands. If I am successful after 10,000 hands, then I will pay someone to code this bad boy up into a program in which I will run 1,000,000 Labouchere Lines. Depending on those results, I may or may not take on the challenge.
The infinite time qualifier is fair game. When we say that every slots player WILL eventually lose money playing the slots, we are also including the player that hits for $1,000,000 on a Progressive within an hour of taking his seat. Why is this player included? Infinite time. Eventually, if he continues to put money int the slot machine, the casino's edge will continue to chip away at his profits until he has ultimately lost money.
Say it's a dollar slot and you have to bet two credits to achieve the Progressive (if it hits). The guy is $1,000,000 in the good. If you assume he does exactly nothing but lose until the million is gone, you're talking about 500,000 pulls. If we put him at a fair 500 pulls/hour, then you're talking about 1,000 hours of pulling. If you say he pulls eight hours/day, then he would have to pull at that rate for 125 days to lose the million.
That's doing nothing but losing.
If he's a million in the good and the slot pays out at 80%, for simplicity's sake, then you're talking about 500 pulls/hour being $1,000 of which he can be expected to be returned $800. He basically would lose $200/hour.
$1,000,000/200 (loss per hour) = 5,000 hours of pulling. 5,000/8 (hours per day)= 625 days
Your average player, I would argue, is simply not going to play that much in the remainder of his life. Maybe he would, though, I don't know.
It's just, when you make the statement, "Everyone will eventually lose," infinite time is an assumption in that statement. If we can use the assumption to argue the one way, then I would suggest I have the right to use it to argue the other way.
TheCessPit,
I agree with what you have said, and essentially had already made the same point, with all due respect. The point that was making was, with the Martingale, five consecutive losses bust you in that scenario. That's independent of any previous successes or losses. With the Labouchere, five consecutive losses will NEVER bust you independently of past events, it is past-event dependent on the extent that you must have that choppy pattern or single-number or basically anything that results in more previous losses than wins.
DealerWins,
I love the username. In any case, I have already acknowledged that the system WILL eventually fail to successfully complete a line. The system MUST fail to complete a line eventually.
With respect to the 0.5% casino edge, that's basically the edge that the casino has assuming the player plays perfectly, but it's something of a straight up number. The goal of this system is not to Quixotically attempt to chop away at the casino edge, but very simply, to put oneself in a position where one can succeed by winning LESS than one should actually win.
The only way this will be absolutely determined is with extensve experimentation, which I will be undergoing. Keep in mind that this is more educational for me than it is any great free money scheme. If it is proven to work, I will certainly adopt it, but it is my love of mathematics and probability that is driving me to try to develop such a system, not money.
Switch,
Good points. I also agree that the Modified Labouchere MUST eventually fail to complete a line. The mathematical question is whether or not the failure to complete the line(s) when compounded will be negated (and more) by the compounded lines that do complete.
DWheatley,
That was an excellent post. I appreciate the thought that went into it.
Keep in mind that I do not intend to throw this system at the betting system challenge right away. I'm actually in the process of tinkering with a couple of things, so the system is far from complete. (Details in my next post) I'm also going to conduct extensive experimentation on my own before I would even consider paying anyone to code this for me, I'm thinking 10,000 hands. If I am successful after 10,000 hands, then I will pay someone to code this bad boy up into a program in which I will run 1,000,000 Labouchere Lines. Depending on those results, I may or may not take on the challenge.
The infinite time qualifier is fair game. When we say that every slots player WILL eventually lose money playing the slots, we are also including the player that hits for $1,000,000 on a Progressive within an hour of taking his seat. Why is this player included? Infinite time. Eventually, if he continues to put money int the slot machine, the casino's edge will continue to chip away at his profits until he has ultimately lost money.
Say it's a dollar slot and you have to bet two credits to achieve the Progressive (if it hits). The guy is $1,000,000 in the good. If you assume he does exactly nothing but lose until the million is gone, you're talking about 500,000 pulls. If we put him at a fair 500 pulls/hour, then you're talking about 1,000 hours of pulling. If you say he pulls eight hours/day, then he would have to pull at that rate for 125 days to lose the million.
That's doing nothing but losing.
If he's a million in the good and the slot pays out at 80%, for simplicity's sake, then you're talking about 500 pulls/hour being $1,000 of which he can be expected to be returned $800. He basically would lose $200/hour.
$1,000,000/200 (loss per hour) = 5,000 hours of pulling. 5,000/8 (hours per day)= 625 days
Your average player, I would argue, is simply not going to play that much in the remainder of his life. Maybe he would, though, I don't know.
It's just, when you make the statement, "Everyone will eventually lose," infinite time is an assumption in that statement. If we can use the assumption to argue the one way, then I would suggest I have the right to use it to argue the other way.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 16th, 2012 at 2:08:32 PM
permalink
" Say it's a dollar slot and you have to bet two credits to achieve the Progressive (if it hits). The guy is $1,000,000 in the good."
For $499 I will sell you my slot predictor system and you can hit that Progressive within 476.2 spins.
Yes, I do take Paypal !
For $499 I will sell you my slot predictor system and you can hit that Progressive within 476.2 spins.
Yes, I do take Paypal !
May 16th, 2012 at 2:12:31 PM
permalink
SYSTEM CHANGES:
The majority of my previous notes were illegible, so could not be copied over to here anyway. They were also not detailed. I am going to make the following changes to the system, and will make the following changes to my notes and keep better notes.
Here are the changes:
1.) The player's bankroll will now be $500. That does not mean he only gets $500 once, it just means that when the player has lost $500 in pursuit of the line that the player must start a new line.
2.) The maximum single bet is still $200.
3.) I have to make a hard and fast rule concerning surrendering, or it's not a system. The rule is, quite simply, that I will surrender as dictated by basic strategy.
NOTES:
1.) I will play in sessions and will post data for each session (as they are played) and combined session data at the end of each post. I do not have a great deal of time to sit around and do this all day, or anything, so this will take time.
2.) I will post the final line (without cross-outs), the amount profited on the line, the number of hands played, and the result of each hand.
The legend will be as follows:
W-Win
L-Loss
P-Push
N-Natural
DW-Double Win
DL-Double Loss
SWW-Split Two Wins
SWL-Split, One Win, One Loss
SSWWL- Two Splits, Two Wins, One Loss (You get the idea)
S-Surrender
3.) At the end of the post. I will tally up hours played, overall hand result percentages, money won/lost, and money per hour won/lost.
Does anyone have any suggestions for the legend, or is that about as straightforward as it can get? Finally, does anyone know of a better or more efficient way to conduct the experiment...aside from learning computer programming, which I know zero about?
The majority of my previous notes were illegible, so could not be copied over to here anyway. They were also not detailed. I am going to make the following changes to the system, and will make the following changes to my notes and keep better notes.
Here are the changes:
1.) The player's bankroll will now be $500. That does not mean he only gets $500 once, it just means that when the player has lost $500 in pursuit of the line that the player must start a new line.
2.) The maximum single bet is still $200.
3.) I have to make a hard and fast rule concerning surrendering, or it's not a system. The rule is, quite simply, that I will surrender as dictated by basic strategy.
NOTES:
1.) I will play in sessions and will post data for each session (as they are played) and combined session data at the end of each post. I do not have a great deal of time to sit around and do this all day, or anything, so this will take time.
2.) I will post the final line (without cross-outs), the amount profited on the line, the number of hands played, and the result of each hand.
The legend will be as follows:
W-Win
L-Loss
P-Push
N-Natural
DW-Double Win
DL-Double Loss
SWW-Split Two Wins
SWL-Split, One Win, One Loss
SSWWL- Two Splits, Two Wins, One Loss (You get the idea)
S-Surrender
3.) At the end of the post. I will tally up hours played, overall hand result percentages, money won/lost, and money per hour won/lost.
Does anyone have any suggestions for the legend, or is that about as straightforward as it can get? Finally, does anyone know of a better or more efficient way to conduct the experiment...aside from learning computer programming, which I know zero about?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 16th, 2012 at 2:14:08 PM
permalink
I predict that if I play the slots I will probably lose.
Cost: Free
I do play on-line slots, however, with free bonus chips. I'll always take free money. The only money I have ever lost is that which I have had to deposit to get what I won.
Cost: Free
I do play on-line slots, however, with free bonus chips. I'll always take free money. The only money I have ever lost is that which I have had to deposit to get what I won.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 16th, 2012 at 2:16:32 PM
permalink
DWheatley,
I am also a better than average card counter, but by no means a professional. The very limited player edge gained from card counting is really not worth it to me, however, unless I was actually going to make a profession out of being a Blackjack player...which is quite doubtful.
I am also a better than average card counter, but by no means a professional. The very limited player edge gained from card counting is really not worth it to me, however, unless I was actually going to make a profession out of being a Blackjack player...which is quite doubtful.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 16th, 2012 at 2:17:17 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146
It's just, when you make the statement, "Everyone will eventually lose," infinite time is an assumption in that statement. If we can use the assumption to argue the one way, then I would suggest I have the right to use it to argue the other way.
It's not a good statement and hides how things actually work.
Everyone's expected value is negative in these games (if playing without counting or other advantage). You cannot make that expectation positive via a betting system (varying your bets) if each bet result is independent and unrelated to previous events. BUT your result maybe positive. But even if you do go positive, the next bet still has a negative expectation.
Expected Value is for before making a bet. Actual Value is what you have after making those bet(s).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
May 16th, 2012 at 3:52:00 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146I hope that eventually the Wizard may read my post and see what he thinks about the system.
Me too.
I hope mustangsally writes some of her brilliance as well.
May 16th, 2012 at 4:42:38 PM
permalink
I understand exactly what you're saying, but the game I am playing is essentially one of necessary winning percentage. I believe that the Modified Labouchere System will have a few advantages that are impossible in Craps or Roulette.
First of all, the expectation (Casino Edge) is less player-favorable to begin with in both Craps and Roulette. Furthermore, neither of those games affords the possibility of being able to cross off all five of your numbers with one or two bets.
Additionally, the Labouchere System applied to Craps or Roulette does not afford the opportunity, under any circumstances, to win an amount greater than the sum of the line. With the Modified Labouchere System, such a result is not only possible, but thus far, seem to happen about 1/3rd of the time. I am starting a new study, though, because my records from earlier were not specific enough.
First of all, the expectation (Casino Edge) is less player-favorable to begin with in both Craps and Roulette. Furthermore, neither of those games affords the possibility of being able to cross off all five of your numbers with one or two bets.
Additionally, the Labouchere System applied to Craps or Roulette does not afford the opportunity, under any circumstances, to win an amount greater than the sum of the line. With the Modified Labouchere System, such a result is not only possible, but thus far, seem to happen about 1/3rd of the time. I am starting a new study, though, because my records from earlier were not specific enough.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 16th, 2012 at 6:13:02 PM
permalink
I would normally be glad to help you research this, but I am tied up on my perpetual motion machine at present.
May 16th, 2012 at 7:40:45 PM
permalink
-1 + -1 < 0
End of line.
End of line.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
May 16th, 2012 at 8:59:36 PM
permalink
Greetings.
This is Mission146, however, I cannot post as Mission146. Vegas is frightened of me and has hacked my account.
I jest.
In reality, this Forum has a feature by which it prevents a Spambot from flooding by only allowing you as many posts as days you have been a member for the first thirty days of membership.
I have no idea why I was allowed to even make eleven posts in two days of membership.
I have PM'ed the Wizard who said that he will contact the webmaster to see if anything can be done. Given the favorable response from Wizard, I would imagine this duplicate account would be tolerated only for the purpose of posting once per day so that I can maintain this thread.
SlackyHacky,
I'm glad to have some support. There are certainly any number of people who know more than I do, so any help from those people is always appreciated.
Buzzpaff,
It's cool, thank you just the same.
RESULTS (Hands 1-99 of 1,000-10,000):
SESSION STATS
Time: 45 Minutes (Playing)
Hands: 99
Profit: $50
Profit Per Hour: $66.67
Pushes: 9 (9.1%)
Losses: 46 (46.5%)
Wins: 32 (32.3%)
Double-Loss: 1 (1%)
Double Wins: 2 (2%)
Surrenders: 6 (6.1%)
Naturals: 2 (2%)
SplitWW: 1 (1%)
All Wins: 37 (37.4%)
All Losses: 53 (53.5%)
NOTE: Posting tables from Microsoft Word doesn't seem to wok very well. Is there a better way to attempt to do that?
This is Mission146, however, I cannot post as Mission146. Vegas is frightened of me and has hacked my account.
I jest.
In reality, this Forum has a feature by which it prevents a Spambot from flooding by only allowing you as many posts as days you have been a member for the first thirty days of membership.
I have no idea why I was allowed to even make eleven posts in two days of membership.
I have PM'ed the Wizard who said that he will contact the webmaster to see if anything can be done. Given the favorable response from Wizard, I would imagine this duplicate account would be tolerated only for the purpose of posting once per day so that I can maintain this thread.
SlackyHacky,
I'm glad to have some support. There are certainly any number of people who know more than I do, so any help from those people is always appreciated.
Buzzpaff,
It's cool, thank you just the same.
RESULTS (Hands 1-99 of 1,000-10,000):
| Hands | Line | Results | Profit/Loss |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8, 10, 12, 14, 8, 10, 10, 12, 12, 22, 30, 38 (38, 8, 30 gone with DW on 46 base bet and 22 reduced to 6) | DL, L, L, L, S, P, L, W, L, L, P, W, L, W, W, W, L, L, L, DW, W, W | Profit: $10 Hands: 22 Pushes: 2 (9.1%) Losses: 10 (45.5%) Double-Loss: 1 (4.5%) Wins: 7 (31.8%) Double Wins: 1 (4.5%) Surrenders: 1 (4.5%) All Losses: 12 (54.5%) All Wins: 8 (36.4%) |
| 18 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 6, 4, 6, 4, 8, 8, 10, 14, 18 (Split Win-Win knocks out 18 and 4, knocks out 14, reduces 10 to 2) | L, L, S, L, S, W, L, W, L, P, W, W, W, L, L, L, SWW, W | Profit: $10 Hands: 18 Pushes: 1 (5.6%) Losses: 8 (44.4%) Wins: 6 (33.3%) SplitWW: 1 (5.6%) Surrenders: 2 (11.1%) All Losses: 10 (55.6%) All Wins: 7 (38.9%) |
| 30 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 8, 10, 12, 6, 4, 6, 8, 6, 8, 10, 12, 2 (Natural on 16 base bet eliminates 10 and 6, eliminates 6 and reduces 4 to 2) | P, L, W, P, L, P, L, W, L, P, L, L, L, W, S, S, L, L, W, L, W, L, W, L, W, L, W, N, L, W | Profit: $10 Hands: 30 Pushes: 4 (13.3%) Losses: 14 (46.6%) Wins: 9 (30%) Naturals: 1 (3.3%) Surrenders: 2 (6.6%) All Losses: (53.3%) All Wins: (33.3%) |
| 20 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 10, 12, 3, 5, 7 (Natural on 10 base bet eliminates 8 and 2 and reduces 6 to 1) | L, L, P, L, L, W, L, L, W, W, N, L, L, L, P, W, W, L, W, W | Profit: $10 Hands: 20 Pushes: 2 (10%) Losses: 10 (50%) Wins: 7 (35%) Naturals: 1 (5%) All Losses: (50%) All Wins: (40%) |
| 9 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 3, 5, 7 (Win on Double Eliminates 5 and 2 as well as 2, 2, 3) | L, W, L, S, L, L, W, DW, W | Profit: $10 Hands: 9 Losses: 4 (44%) Surrenders: 1 (11%) Wins: 3 (33%) Double Wins: 1 (11%) All Losses: (55%) All Wins: (44%) |
SESSION STATS
Time: 45 Minutes (Playing)
Hands: 99
Profit: $50
Profit Per Hour: $66.67
Pushes: 9 (9.1%)
Losses: 46 (46.5%)
Wins: 32 (32.3%)
Double-Loss: 1 (1%)
Double Wins: 2 (2%)
Surrenders: 6 (6.1%)
Naturals: 2 (2%)
SplitWW: 1 (1%)
All Wins: 37 (37.4%)
All Losses: 53 (53.5%)
NOTE: Posting tables from Microsoft Word doesn't seem to wok very well. Is there a better way to attempt to do that?
May 16th, 2012 at 9:41:14 PM
permalink
Flat Betting w/ Same Hand Results @ $10/bet:
Pushes: 9 ($0)
Losses: 46 (-$460)
Wins: 32 ($320)
Double-Loss: 1 (-$20)
Double Wins: 2 ($40)
Surrenders: 6 ($-30)
Naturals: 2 ($30)
SplitWW: 1 ($20)
Profit/Loss: -$100
Loss Per Hour: -$133.32
Difference: Modified Labouchere +$150, + $200/hour
OBSERVATIONS:
1.) The results are slightly skewed at this point because 89.9% payout rate is such an abyssmal return that I'd find it unacceptable if it came from a slot machine. Anyone can look at the statistics and see that I was confronted with a terrible run of cards, (which were much worse if you were actually sitting there playing them, trust me) so it is very likely that the flat betting will approach something closer to expectations over time and more hands.
2.) The Modified Labouchere did not come anywhere near the $500 bankroll or $200 Table Maximum at any point. I believe the highest single bet was $60-something.
3.) Again, I know that the Modified Labouchere will eventually fail to complete a line. This test is basically one of frequency. Can the Modified Labouchere succeed more than it fails to such an extent as to be a workable long-run betting system?
Pushes: 9 ($0)
Losses: 46 (-$460)
Wins: 32 ($320)
Double-Loss: 1 (-$20)
Double Wins: 2 ($40)
Surrenders: 6 ($-30)
Naturals: 2 ($30)
SplitWW: 1 ($20)
Profit/Loss: -$100
Loss Per Hour: -$133.32
Difference: Modified Labouchere +$150, + $200/hour
OBSERVATIONS:
1.) The results are slightly skewed at this point because 89.9% payout rate is such an abyssmal return that I'd find it unacceptable if it came from a slot machine. Anyone can look at the statistics and see that I was confronted with a terrible run of cards, (which were much worse if you were actually sitting there playing them, trust me) so it is very likely that the flat betting will approach something closer to expectations over time and more hands.
2.) The Modified Labouchere did not come anywhere near the $500 bankroll or $200 Table Maximum at any point. I believe the highest single bet was $60-something.
3.) Again, I know that the Modified Labouchere will eventually fail to complete a line. This test is basically one of frequency. Can the Modified Labouchere succeed more than it fails to such an extent as to be a workable long-run betting system?
May 16th, 2012 at 10:31:58 PM
permalink
It will be Money well spent.
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
May 16th, 2012 at 10:37:33 PM
permalink
Of course it can NOT.Quote: Pavlov146
3.) ... Can the Modified Labouchere succeed more than it fails to such an extent as to be a workable long-run betting system?
So does a Martingale system.
All betting systems can have a very high winning percentage in the short run. Still, many bankrolls lose before winning just one time.
problem is when it fails, as others have pointed out, it easily wipes out many, many and many wins.
And even IF you can get a system to win 99% or 99 out of 100 attempts, that system by the 68th attempt only has a 50.5% chance of winning 68 times in a row.
You will need more than that, more than 68 wins in a row, to offset the large loss that lurks at that level.
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
May 17th, 2012 at 7:34:32 AM
permalink
Mission146/Pavlov146:
Forum rule#11: Multiple accounts: One account per person. Posting under multiple identities is cause for immediate expulsion. (Added 12/30/2010). Notice that there is no provision for suspension with this rule. It goes straight to expulsion.
So there's no confusion, are you implying that the Wizard has exempted you from this rule? If so, do you plan on creating more identities? Since you're allowed multiple identities I suggest everyone stay on your good side. Your flagging power will soon be double that of anyone else.
Forum rule#11: Multiple accounts: One account per person. Posting under multiple identities is cause for immediate expulsion. (Added 12/30/2010). Notice that there is no provision for suspension with this rule. It goes straight to expulsion.
So there's no confusion, are you implying that the Wizard has exempted you from this rule? If so, do you plan on creating more identities? Since you're allowed multiple identities I suggest everyone stay on your good side. Your flagging power will soon be double that of anyone else.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
May 17th, 2012 at 7:51:53 AM
permalink
The Field bet in Craps has payouts of 2 to 1 and 3 to 1. Most know this.Quote: Mission146
Additionally, the Labouchere System applied to Craps or Roulette does not afford the opportunity, under any circumstances, to win an amount greater than the sum of the line. With the Modified Labouchere System, such a result is not only possible, but thus far, seem to happen about 1/3rd of the time. I am starting a new study, though, because my records from earlier were not specific enough.
And the initial bet in the field does not have to be increased as does the Odds bet or bets in BJ.
WinCraps even has a Field auto-bet already completed.
It does use the chip stack ref#, so a little practice is needed to understand how it works.
Stewart Ethier in his Doctrine of Chances book has a section on 6 popular betting systems, Labouchere is included, and the required bankroll formulas needed to win one unit given a house limit.
See page 296.
Google preview works just fine for this.
May 17th, 2012 at 2:14:29 PM
permalink
IN ORDER:
7Craps,
I understand about the zero house edge bets for Craps. The problem with such bets as applied to my Modified Labouchere System is that, in order to even have a chance to make such a bet, you have to first make a bet that has a worse expectation than Blackjack played by Basic Strategy.
Secondly, the Modified Labouchere has a goal of reducing the necessary winning percentage in order for the system to successfully complete. By reducing the winning percentage, in turn, you will also reduce the number of actual wins necessary to complete the system. The problem with the zero-house edge bet is that, while the expected result is zero (no casino advantage) you're still making a single bet in which you can be expected to lose with a greater frequency than you will with Blackjack hands. Depending on how much you are backing your Edge bet with, you could be faced with an insurmountable Labouchere Line in very short order given unfavorable dice.
In other words, let's imagine you have a starting line in Blackjack or Craps of:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2
Per the above, you would actually have to lose 199 hands in a row of Blackjack before you hit the table limit. However, if you back up your bet 5x with the Edge Bet, every time, your line will go as follows, assuming consecutive losses:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 24, 156,
As you can see, after two consecutive losses, you can no longer fully back up your Edge Bet because of the Table Limit.
Simply stated, the Modified Labouchere is going to get smacked around under these circumstances. You should also keep in mind that, while the House Edge is zero and true odds are paid, the expectation of an Edge Bet (if you are playing the right way) is always going to be a loss...in terms of that individual bet. It's more likely not to happen than it is for it to happen.
I will grant you that one win would wipe out your Modified Labouchere Line and then some, but then there's really no point in playing a Modified Labouchere Line. The results would be little different, if at all, than just sitting down and betting. That's short term or long-term.
You are correct that you can cross out all your numbers with one win, however, you would literally do it with EVERY win, which makes it completely without purpose to even play a Modified Labouchere Line, unless of course the Table Max is ridiculously high compared to the Table Minimum.
I am not well-versed in C++ code. I also find it prudent to run a manual simulation of 10,000 hands before paying anyone to do anything.
7Craps(2),
If you are not willing to bet more than $500 in pursuit of any single line, then you would not need to complete 68 lines in a row to survive a big loss.
Specifically, since the minimum profit for which a line can complete is $10, then fifty successful lines, by default, gives you $500. $500 is also the absolute maximum you can lose in pursuit of any individual line. You would not make a bet that would put you over $500, you would also not reduce your bet to an amount that is $500 less your total losses in pursuit of the line. You would not chop your line up because that increases the minimum winning percentage necessary thus defeating the purpose of the system.
Simply put, if you have lost $400 in pursuit of the line, and the next bet demanded by the system is $180, then that's it, you have lost $400. Whip out 5 C-Notes and start a new line.
In short, fifty consecutive successful lines absolutely guarantees that your profits survive a big loss. That's assuming (mathematically incorrect assumption) that you ONLY win $10 per completed line AND that your losses sum up to exactly $500, again, highly unlikely.
1BB
I did not mean to imply any such thing. I directly stated that I was assuming the Wizard would be fine with the duplicate account pro hac vice (Latin: On this one occasion) because I was doing it to circumvent a Forum setting that he was in the process of having changed, at my request.
This Forum setting has been changed. I have no intention of having more than two identities, nor do I have any intention of using Pavlov146 again. I would ask, however, that Pavlov146 not be deleted as it contains my results. I suppose I should Quote/Post that.
I do not know what Flagging is, thus, I am not concerned about it.
Guido111
The negative expectation of Craps (in general), and specifically, the Field Bet overcomes the Labouchere System (and any other method of betting) with a greater frequency than Blackjack. Depending on the rules, your negative expectation is a house edge of 2.78%-5.56%.
Simply put, the necessary winning percentage in Blackjack will be lower than that needed in Craps, generally speaking, to complete a Labouchere line.
I have extensively studied the Labouchere System and have done independent research on the System. I have not found, in my experience, any writings that tend to apply the Labouchere System to Blackjack in the manner in which I am doing. If you do have any evidence of this experiment already being conducted in the manner in which I propose, and failing, that would certainly save me much time and I would have the utmost appreciation for you providing me with same.
NOTES:
1.) I will admit that I failed to consider the zero house-advantage Edge bet in Craps, but I easily dispatched of any argument pertaining to that with respect to the Modified Labouchere application. Simply put, there would be no point in applying the Modified Labouchere to that with exception to, maybe, an Extreme disparity between the Table Mins. and Maxes.
I did not mean to imply that there was absolutely NO bet that could cancel out a line completely, or that you could NEVER win in excess of the sum of the line. I said, "The Labouchere System applied," which is meant to imply that there BE a reason to apply the Labouchere System to begin with.
For example, I can plunk down $4.00 on Yo, Straight-Up, with the 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 Labouchere Line and one win would cancel the line and then some, (17:1 payout), but it would be without purpose to even attempt a Labouchere Line with that because the House Edge is 11.11%. The necessary winning percentage would also be extremely difficult to meet on a consistent basis given the Past-Result-Independent nature of the bet. The same is true of the Field, just to a lesser extent.
Once again, when you back the Come with an Edge Bet, the amount you lose is simply too great to employ the system in any meaningful way. The expectation of a single play is also a loss, in terms of probability, which is why the House-Edge is zero even though you are getting paid more than 1:1.
The Labouchere is about winning percentages. As you saw above, if you won 0% in a sample size of 2 your line has failed.
I'm not saying that's a bad bet, any zero edge bet is a GOOD bet, it's just not applicable.
2.) Once again, the name of the game is necessary winning percentage.
I have played 39 hands so far today in a half-hour sample (which I will post later) and intend to do another sample if I have time today. Given yesterday's results, however, they are illustrative of what I mean when I talk about necessary winning percentage.
I had a more favorable run of cards earlier today, but as you can see by last night's sample, I would have gotten absolutely brutalized playing flat betting. The timing was fantastic for demonstrating my point, but I honestly think I have never seen a worse run of cards in my life.
The Fourth Line was the only one where Wins + Pushes equaled 50% or greater...and they equaled exactly 50%. The fifth line was the only one that would have been profitable in a flat-betting scenario, and it would have won $5 compared to the $10 that was won.
3.) I will post today's results later, but you will see that they show the flip side of the Modified Labouchere coin. Specifically, I profited $84 with Modified Labouchere and flat-betting would have put me up $125.
Overall, the Modified Labouchere has me $134 ahead where flat betting would have me ahead $25.
This was a sample of 39 hands with a combine Win/Push rate of 59% inclusive of only one Push. In other words, I won a better than expected 56.4% of hands.
7Craps,
I understand about the zero house edge bets for Craps. The problem with such bets as applied to my Modified Labouchere System is that, in order to even have a chance to make such a bet, you have to first make a bet that has a worse expectation than Blackjack played by Basic Strategy.
Secondly, the Modified Labouchere has a goal of reducing the necessary winning percentage in order for the system to successfully complete. By reducing the winning percentage, in turn, you will also reduce the number of actual wins necessary to complete the system. The problem with the zero-house edge bet is that, while the expected result is zero (no casino advantage) you're still making a single bet in which you can be expected to lose with a greater frequency than you will with Blackjack hands. Depending on how much you are backing your Edge bet with, you could be faced with an insurmountable Labouchere Line in very short order given unfavorable dice.
In other words, let's imagine you have a starting line in Blackjack or Craps of:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2
Per the above, you would actually have to lose 199 hands in a row of Blackjack before you hit the table limit. However, if you back up your bet 5x with the Edge Bet, every time, your line will go as follows, assuming consecutive losses:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 24, 156,
As you can see, after two consecutive losses, you can no longer fully back up your Edge Bet because of the Table Limit.
Simply stated, the Modified Labouchere is going to get smacked around under these circumstances. You should also keep in mind that, while the House Edge is zero and true odds are paid, the expectation of an Edge Bet (if you are playing the right way) is always going to be a loss...in terms of that individual bet. It's more likely not to happen than it is for it to happen.
I will grant you that one win would wipe out your Modified Labouchere Line and then some, but then there's really no point in playing a Modified Labouchere Line. The results would be little different, if at all, than just sitting down and betting. That's short term or long-term.
You are correct that you can cross out all your numbers with one win, however, you would literally do it with EVERY win, which makes it completely without purpose to even play a Modified Labouchere Line, unless of course the Table Max is ridiculously high compared to the Table Minimum.
I am not well-versed in C++ code. I also find it prudent to run a manual simulation of 10,000 hands before paying anyone to do anything.
7Craps(2),
If you are not willing to bet more than $500 in pursuit of any single line, then you would not need to complete 68 lines in a row to survive a big loss.
Specifically, since the minimum profit for which a line can complete is $10, then fifty successful lines, by default, gives you $500. $500 is also the absolute maximum you can lose in pursuit of any individual line. You would not make a bet that would put you over $500, you would also not reduce your bet to an amount that is $500 less your total losses in pursuit of the line. You would not chop your line up because that increases the minimum winning percentage necessary thus defeating the purpose of the system.
Simply put, if you have lost $400 in pursuit of the line, and the next bet demanded by the system is $180, then that's it, you have lost $400. Whip out 5 C-Notes and start a new line.
In short, fifty consecutive successful lines absolutely guarantees that your profits survive a big loss. That's assuming (mathematically incorrect assumption) that you ONLY win $10 per completed line AND that your losses sum up to exactly $500, again, highly unlikely.
1BB
I did not mean to imply any such thing. I directly stated that I was assuming the Wizard would be fine with the duplicate account pro hac vice (Latin: On this one occasion) because I was doing it to circumvent a Forum setting that he was in the process of having changed, at my request.
This Forum setting has been changed. I have no intention of having more than two identities, nor do I have any intention of using Pavlov146 again. I would ask, however, that Pavlov146 not be deleted as it contains my results. I suppose I should Quote/Post that.
I do not know what Flagging is, thus, I am not concerned about it.
Guido111
The negative expectation of Craps (in general), and specifically, the Field Bet overcomes the Labouchere System (and any other method of betting) with a greater frequency than Blackjack. Depending on the rules, your negative expectation is a house edge of 2.78%-5.56%.
Simply put, the necessary winning percentage in Blackjack will be lower than that needed in Craps, generally speaking, to complete a Labouchere line.
I have extensively studied the Labouchere System and have done independent research on the System. I have not found, in my experience, any writings that tend to apply the Labouchere System to Blackjack in the manner in which I am doing. If you do have any evidence of this experiment already being conducted in the manner in which I propose, and failing, that would certainly save me much time and I would have the utmost appreciation for you providing me with same.
NOTES:
1.) I will admit that I failed to consider the zero house-advantage Edge bet in Craps, but I easily dispatched of any argument pertaining to that with respect to the Modified Labouchere application. Simply put, there would be no point in applying the Modified Labouchere to that with exception to, maybe, an Extreme disparity between the Table Mins. and Maxes.
I did not mean to imply that there was absolutely NO bet that could cancel out a line completely, or that you could NEVER win in excess of the sum of the line. I said, "The Labouchere System applied," which is meant to imply that there BE a reason to apply the Labouchere System to begin with.
For example, I can plunk down $4.00 on Yo, Straight-Up, with the 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 Labouchere Line and one win would cancel the line and then some, (17:1 payout), but it would be without purpose to even attempt a Labouchere Line with that because the House Edge is 11.11%. The necessary winning percentage would also be extremely difficult to meet on a consistent basis given the Past-Result-Independent nature of the bet. The same is true of the Field, just to a lesser extent.
Once again, when you back the Come with an Edge Bet, the amount you lose is simply too great to employ the system in any meaningful way. The expectation of a single play is also a loss, in terms of probability, which is why the House-Edge is zero even though you are getting paid more than 1:1.
The Labouchere is about winning percentages. As you saw above, if you won 0% in a sample size of 2 your line has failed.
I'm not saying that's a bad bet, any zero edge bet is a GOOD bet, it's just not applicable.
2.) Once again, the name of the game is necessary winning percentage.
I have played 39 hands so far today in a half-hour sample (which I will post later) and intend to do another sample if I have time today. Given yesterday's results, however, they are illustrative of what I mean when I talk about necessary winning percentage.
I had a more favorable run of cards earlier today, but as you can see by last night's sample, I would have gotten absolutely brutalized playing flat betting. The timing was fantastic for demonstrating my point, but I honestly think I have never seen a worse run of cards in my life.
The Fourth Line was the only one where Wins + Pushes equaled 50% or greater...and they equaled exactly 50%. The fifth line was the only one that would have been profitable in a flat-betting scenario, and it would have won $5 compared to the $10 that was won.
3.) I will post today's results later, but you will see that they show the flip side of the Modified Labouchere coin. Specifically, I profited $84 with Modified Labouchere and flat-betting would have put me up $125.
Overall, the Modified Labouchere has me $134 ahead where flat betting would have me ahead $25.
This was a sample of 39 hands with a combine Win/Push rate of 59% inclusive of only one Push. In other words, I won a better than expected 56.4% of hands.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 17th, 2012 at 2:17:13 PM
permalink
Quote: Pavlov146Greetings.
This is Mission146, however, I cannot post as Mission146. Vegas is frightened of me and has hacked my account.
I jest.
In reality, this Forum has a feature by which it prevents a Spambot from flooding by only allowing you as many posts as days you have been a member for the first thirty days of membership.
I have no idea why I was allowed to even make eleven posts in two days of membership.
I have PM'ed the Wizard who said that he will contact the webmaster to see if anything can be done. Given the favorable response from Wizard, I would imagine this duplicate account would be tolerated only for the purpose of posting once per day so that I can maintain this thread.
SlackyHacky,
I'm glad to have some support. There are certainly any number of people who know more than I do, so any help from those people is always appreciated.
Buzzpaff,
It's cool, thank you just the same.
RESULTS (Hands 1-99 of 1,000-10,000):
Hands Line Results Profit/Loss 22 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8, 10, 12, 14, 8, 10, 10, 12, 12, 22, 30, 38 (38, 8, 30 gone with DW on 46 base bet and 22 reduced to 6) DL, L, L, L, S, P, L, W, L, L, P, W, L, W, W, W, L, L, L, DW, W, W Profit: $10
Hands: 22
Pushes: 2 (9.1%)
Losses: 10 (45.5%)
Double-Loss: 1 (4.5%)
Wins: 7 (31.8%)
Double Wins: 1 (4.5%)
Surrenders: 1 (4.5%)
All Losses: 12 (54.5%)
All Wins: 8 (36.4%)18 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 6, 4, 6, 4, 8, 8, 10, 14, 18 (Split Win-Win knocks out 18 and 4, knocks out 14, reduces 10 to 2) L, L, S, L, S, W, L, W, L, P, W, W, W, L, L, L, SWW, W Profit: $10
Hands: 18
Pushes: 1 (5.6%)
Losses: 8 (44.4%)
Wins: 6 (33.3%)
SplitWW: 1 (5.6%)
Surrenders: 2 (11.1%)
All Losses: 10 (55.6%)
All Wins: 7 (38.9%)30 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6, 8, 10, 12, 6, 4, 6, 8, 6, 8, 10, 12, 2 (Natural on 16 base bet eliminates 10 and 6, eliminates 6 and reduces 4 to 2) P, L, W, P, L, P, L, W, L, P, L, L, L, W, S, S, L, L, W, L, W, L, W, L, W, L, W, N, L, W Profit: $10
Hands: 30
Pushes: 4 (13.3%)
Losses: 14 (46.6%)
Wins: 9 (30%)
Naturals: 1 (3.3%)
Surrenders: 2 (6.6%)
All Losses: (53.3%)
All Wins: (33.3%)20 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 10, 12, 3, 5, 7 (Natural on 10 base bet eliminates 8 and 2 and reduces 6 to 1) L, L, P, L, L, W, L, L, W, W, N, L, L, L, P, W, W, L, W, W Profit: $10
Hands: 20
Pushes: 2 (10%)
Losses: 10 (50%)
Wins: 7 (35%)
Naturals: 1 (5%)
All Losses: (50%)
All Wins: (40%)9 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 3, 5, 7 (Win on Double Eliminates 5 and 2 as well as 2, 2, 3) L, W, L, S, L, L, W, DW, W Profit: $10
Hands: 9
Losses: 4 (44%)
Surrenders: 1 (11%)
Wins: 3 (33%)
Double Wins: 1 (11%)
All Losses: (55%)
All Wins: (44%)
SESSION STATS
Time: 45 Minutes (Playing)
Hands: 99
Profit: $50
Profit Per Hour: $66.67
Pushes: 9 (9.1%)
Losses: 46 (46.5%)
Wins: 32 (32.3%)
Double-Loss: 1 (1%)
Double Wins: 2 (2%)
Surrenders: 6 (6.1%)
Naturals: 2 (2%)
SplitWW: 1 (1%)
All Wins: 37 (37.4%)
All Losses: 53 (53.5%)
NOTE: Posting tables from Microsoft Word doesn't seem to wok very well. Is there a better way to attempt to do that?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 17th, 2012 at 2:17:32 PM
permalink
Quote: Pavlov146Flat Betting w/ Same Hand Results @ $10/bet:
Pushes: 9 ($0)
Losses: 46 (-$460)
Wins: 32 ($320)
Double-Loss: 1 (-$20)
Double Wins: 2 ($40)
Surrenders: 6 ($-30)
Naturals: 2 ($30)
SplitWW: 1 ($20)
Profit/Loss: -$100
Loss Per Hour: -$133.32
Difference: Modified Labouchere +$150, + $200/hour
OBSERVATIONS:
1.) The results are slightly skewed at this point because 89.9% payout rate is such an abyssmal return that I'd find it unacceptable if it came from a slot machine. Anyone can look at the statistics and see that I was confronted with a terrible run of cards, (which were much worse if you were actually sitting there playing them, trust me) so it is very likely that the flat betting will approach something closer to expectations over time and more hands.
2.) The Modified Labouchere did not come anywhere near the $500 bankroll or $200 Table Maximum at any point. I believe the highest single bet was $60-something.
3.) Again, I know that the Modified Labouchere will eventually fail to complete a line. This test is basically one of frequency. Can the Modified Labouchere succeed more than it fails to such an extent as to be a workable long-run betting system?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 17th, 2012 at 2:55:24 PM
permalink
This thread has gone way past discussing another lame-ass progression into outright spam under multiple user names ...
I say "flag it" ...
--Ms. D.
I say "flag it" ...
--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
May 17th, 2012 at 3:08:14 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146
In other words, let's imagine you have a starting line in Blackjack or Craps of:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2
Per the above, you would actually have to lose 199 hands in a row of Blackjack before you hit the table limit.
Dangerous thinking. It's not consecutive losses that are important on a Reverse Labouchere, as we talked about before. Consecutive losses are a bad metric.
Quote:
However, if you back up your bet 5x with the Edge Bet, every time, your line will go as follows, assuming consecutive losses:
2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 24, 156,
As you can see, after two consecutive losses, you can no longer fully back up your Edge Bet because of the Table Limit.
Use single odds. Smaller number on the line, Large on the odds if point is set, unless you can get enough odds to cover it.
2 2 2 2 2
Seven hit :
2 2 2 2
Point is 4, 7-out :
2 2 2 2 4
Next point is 6, $2 on line $4 odds. Shooter misses :
2 2 2 2 4 6
Next point is 8, and shooter hits, $2 win on line and $6 odds pays $7.
2 2 2 3
Next point is 10 and shooter hits, $2 on the line and $6 win on the odds:
2 1
Etc, etc.
It remains you are making -EV bets. But that's fine, what I am unclear about is what your AIM with the system is?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
May 17th, 2012 at 3:26:07 PM
permalink
removed
silly
Sally
silly
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
May 17th, 2012 at 3:38:42 PM
permalink
For online BJ.Quote: Mission146Greetings,
This is my first post at this website, but I was hoping that someone would be willing to comment if any holes can be found in a betting system which I believe to be viable for on-line Blackjack.
Please keep in mind that it is unlikely for one to be able to employ this system in live casino Blackjack as the memory requirements would be incredible (and you can not have a paper/pen at the table) however, nobody can stop you from having such implements in your own home.
I missed that.
Now you really need lots of Good Luck!
You really trust playing online BJ?
That is gambling!
I Heart Vi Hart
May 17th, 2012 at 3:58:40 PM
permalink
DorothyGale,
The only thing this thread has gone is four pages in fewer days.
I have already asked the Moderator, JB, to delete the posts of, "Pavlov146," as well as the account if he so chooses. I quoted myself so that I would not lose the information. This is my only record of this information. I am not trying to, "Flood," or, "Spam," anything. Specifically, my goal was to answer to people who addressed me in a prompt manner out of courtesy to them.
Besides, what unsolicited bulk message am I trying to send? Was my link in my OP an advertisement for Wikipedia when I didn't even hotlink it? They really don't need me to Spam for them, they're already fairly popular in case you weren't aware of that.
I am not trying to sell anything. I freely admit that this system might prove to be an abject failure. Furthermore, this is an on-going experiment.
In any event, I'm not wasting a post on this alone. There may be more results tonight, if I have time for a few hands, but here are my results from earlier:
Duration: 30 Minutes
Hands: 39
Wins: 15 (38.5%)
Losses: 13 (33.3%)
Surrenders: 2 (5.1%)
Split Wins: 1 (2.6%)
Double Wins: 5 (12.8%)
Double Losses: 1 (2.6%)
Naturals: 1 (2.6%)
Pushes: 1 (2.6%)
All Wins: 22 (56.4%)
All Losses: 16 (41%)
Total Profit: $84 ($168/hr)
VS. FLAT BETTING
Wins: 15 $150
Losses: 13 -$130
Surrenders: 2 -$10
Split Wins: 1 $20
Double Wins: 5 $100
Double Losses: 1 -$20
Naturals: 1 $15
Pushes: 1 $0
Profit: $125 ($250/hr)
RUNNING TOTALS:
Duration: 1.15
Hands: 138
Wins: 47 (34.1%)
Losses: 59 (42.8%)
Surrenders: 8 (5.8%)
Split Wins: 2 (1.4%)
Double Wins: 7 (5.1%)
Double Losses: 2 (1.4%)
Naturals: 3 (2.2%)
Pushes: 10 (7.2%)
Overall Wins: 59 (42.8%)
Overall Losses: 69 (50%)
Pushes: 10 (7.2%)
Labouchere Profit: $84 + $50 = $134
Flat Betting Profit: -$100 + $125 = $25
Difference: $134 - $25 = +$109 (Modified Labouchere)
Labouchere: $134/1.25(Hours) = $107.2
Flat Betting: $25/1.25(Hours) = $20
The only thing this thread has gone is four pages in fewer days.
I have already asked the Moderator, JB, to delete the posts of, "Pavlov146," as well as the account if he so chooses. I quoted myself so that I would not lose the information. This is my only record of this information. I am not trying to, "Flood," or, "Spam," anything. Specifically, my goal was to answer to people who addressed me in a prompt manner out of courtesy to them.
Besides, what unsolicited bulk message am I trying to send? Was my link in my OP an advertisement for Wikipedia when I didn't even hotlink it? They really don't need me to Spam for them, they're already fairly popular in case you weren't aware of that.
I am not trying to sell anything. I freely admit that this system might prove to be an abject failure. Furthermore, this is an on-going experiment.
In any event, I'm not wasting a post on this alone. There may be more results tonight, if I have time for a few hands, but here are my results from earlier:
| Hands | Line | Results | Profit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 6, 8(Double Win on 8 units bet cancels 6, 2 and 4, 2, leaves $2 extra) | W, L, L, L, W, DW | Profit: $12 Hands: 6 Wins: 2 (33%) Losses: 3 (50%) DWin: 1 (16%) Overall Losses: 3 (50%) Overall Wins: 3 (50%) |
| 4 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8, 10(Double Win on 12 Units Bet Cancels 10, 2 and 8, 2, 2) | W, DL, L, DW | Profit: $10 Hands: 4 Wins: 1 (25%) Losses: 1 (25%) DL: 1 (25%) DW: 1 (25%) All Wins: 2 (50%) All Losses: 2 (50%) |
| 3 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4 (Double Win on 6 units bet cancels 4, 2 and 2, 2, 2) | L, DW, W | Profit: $10 Hands: 3 Wins: 1 (33%) DW: 1 (33%) Losses: 1 (33%) All Wins: 2 (67%) |
| 4 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4 | W, L, W, W | Profit: $10 Hands: 4 All Wins: 3 (75%) All Losses: 1 (25%) |
| 3 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 | W, W, W | Profit: $10 All Wins: 3 100% |
| 10 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6 (Natural on 7 eliminates 5, 2 bonus rounds down to 3, eliminates 3...Split-Win eliminates 6, 2 on base bet of 8 and eliminates 4, 2 leaving +$2 | L, S, L, N, W, W, L, L, L, SW | Profit $12 Hands: 10 Losses: 5 (50%) Wins: 2 (20%) SW: 1 (10%) Surrender: 1 (10%) Naturals: 1 (10%) All Wins: 4 (40%) All Losses: 6 (60%) |
| 2 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 (Double Win on Base Bet of 4 eliminates 2, 2 and 2, 2) | DW, W | Profit: $10 Hands: 2 Wins: 1 (50%) DW: 1 (50%) All Wins: 2 (100%) |
| 7 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 4, 2, 4 (Double Win on 6 Base Bet Eliminates 4, 2 and 2, 2, 2) | P, L, W, S, L, DW, W | Profit: $10 Losses: 2 (28.4%) Wins: 2 (28.4%) Surreder: 1 (14.2%) Push: 1 (14.2%) DW: 1 (14.2%) All Wins: 3 (42.6%) All Losses: 3 (42.6%) |
Duration: 30 Minutes
Hands: 39
Wins: 15 (38.5%)
Losses: 13 (33.3%)
Surrenders: 2 (5.1%)
Split Wins: 1 (2.6%)
Double Wins: 5 (12.8%)
Double Losses: 1 (2.6%)
Naturals: 1 (2.6%)
Pushes: 1 (2.6%)
All Wins: 22 (56.4%)
All Losses: 16 (41%)
Total Profit: $84 ($168/hr)
VS. FLAT BETTING
Wins: 15 $150
Losses: 13 -$130
Surrenders: 2 -$10
Split Wins: 1 $20
Double Wins: 5 $100
Double Losses: 1 -$20
Naturals: 1 $15
Pushes: 1 $0
Profit: $125 ($250/hr)
RUNNING TOTALS:
Duration: 1.15
Hands: 138
Wins: 47 (34.1%)
Losses: 59 (42.8%)
Surrenders: 8 (5.8%)
Split Wins: 2 (1.4%)
Double Wins: 7 (5.1%)
Double Losses: 2 (1.4%)
Naturals: 3 (2.2%)
Pushes: 10 (7.2%)
Overall Wins: 59 (42.8%)
Overall Losses: 69 (50%)
Pushes: 10 (7.2%)
Labouchere Profit: $84 + $50 = $134
Flat Betting Profit: -$100 + $125 = $25
Difference: $134 - $25 = +$109 (Modified Labouchere)
Labouchere: $134/1.25(Hours) = $107.2
Flat Betting: $25/1.25(Hours) = $20
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 17th, 2012 at 4:45:33 PM
permalink
No.Quote: DorothyGaleThis thread has gone way past discussing another lame-ass progression into outright spam under multiple user names ...
I say "flag it" ...
--Ms. D.
Do not flag it.
As much as many here at WoV hate anything about betting systems, this thread is in the betting system forum.
Yes, there are those that like to discuss betting systems.
True, the OP has broken a few rules and should pay the consequences.
I Heart Vi Hart
May 17th, 2012 at 4:48:25 PM
permalink
I go with Ms. DQuote: DorothyGaleThis thread has gone way past discussing another lame-ass progression into outright spam under multiple user names ...
I say "flag it" ...
--Ms. D.
OP first talks about online Blackjack.
Then multiple accounts to post more.
We all know what is coming.
There are rules and there are rules.
May 17th, 2012 at 4:49:03 PM
permalink
Welcome, Mission...
First- I do not think the double identity used should result in any repercussions.... Mission explained his reason for doing so, and was not trying to pull a fast one on the Wiz...
Second- I do not have the attention span to read all your bets and results... but of course I don't have to...
Nothing you can post... nothing you can chronicle.... nothing you can document.... Can change the fact that each bet you make the casino has an advantage... that each bet you make has a negative expectation.... that over a large number of flat bets, or Labouchere bets, or Tibetan Monk bets, or.... YOU will lose more than you win....
We all are well aware that if you have a goal to win a small amount with a large bankroll, there are a variety of progression techniques that will achieve that goal well over 50% of the time.... But the frequency of the one big loss multiplied by the dollar value of that big loss, is ALWAYS greater then the frequency of the many little wins multiplied by the value of those little wins.
First- I do not think the double identity used should result in any repercussions.... Mission explained his reason for doing so, and was not trying to pull a fast one on the Wiz...
Second- I do not have the attention span to read all your bets and results... but of course I don't have to...
Nothing you can post... nothing you can chronicle.... nothing you can document.... Can change the fact that each bet you make the casino has an advantage... that each bet you make has a negative expectation.... that over a large number of flat bets, or Labouchere bets, or Tibetan Monk bets, or.... YOU will lose more than you win....
We all are well aware that if you have a goal to win a small amount with a large bankroll, there are a variety of progression techniques that will achieve that goal well over 50% of the time.... But the frequency of the one big loss multiplied by the dollar value of that big loss, is ALWAYS greater then the frequency of the many little wins multiplied by the value of those little wins.
May 17th, 2012 at 4:54:54 PM
permalink
Walter Thomason wrote an entire book "21-st Century Blackjack" based on a few thousand hands he dealt himself at his kitchen table ... maybe you've got a book here ... keep going ...Quote: Mission146... There may be more results tonight, if I have time for a few hands, but here are my results from earlier ...
--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
May 17th, 2012 at 7:50:23 PM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleWalter Thomason wrote an entire book "21-st Century Blackjack" based on a few thousand hands he dealt himself at his kitchen table ... maybe you've got a book here ... keep going ...
Sadly, I bet that book sold at least 100x more copies than mine.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 17th, 2012 at 8:01:56 PM
permalink
No doubt, it was in every Barnes & Noble and Borders in the country for many years ... I love this review from Roger Harris:Quote: WizardSadly, I bet that book sold at least 100x more copies than mine.
--Ms. D.Quote: Roger HarrisThe most important thing you need to know about this book is that Thomason's system simply does NOT work. Despite Thomason's claims, there is no logical reason to think it should work; there is no convincing (that is, statistically significant) evidence that it does work; and there is CONSIDERABLE evidence, from both math and computer simulations, that it does NOT work. I have simulated this system using CVSim (a popular commercial simulator), with my own simulator, and with a modified version of a "freeware" simulator. All together, I have the results from many billions of hands. All three simulators gave precisely the same result: This progression produces slightly worse results, in terms of amount lost per dollar bet, than flat betting. My own simulator also accumulated results by "sessions" ranging from 100 hands (about an hour of playing time) up to 50,000 hands, and it also compared flat betting to the progression on the same hands, as Thomason does in the book. In ALL cases, the progression had fewer winning sessions than flat betting, and flat betting beat the progression in more than half the sessions. It seems likely that Thomason was merely self-deluded at the time he wrote the book (as a result of the insignificant number of blackjack hands that he used for testing), but he now knows about these results, after lengthy debate with myself and others on Stanford Wong's [...] forum. It's hard now for me to avoid the conclusion that Thomason simply doesn't care that a lot of people will lose a lot of money playing this system. You don't need to be one of them. Do NOT fall for the idiotic "reasoning" that since card counting is hard, you should play a progression. This is really just an example of Thomason's inability to deal with ordinary logic.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
May 17th, 2012 at 8:48:07 PM
permalink
Since Frank Scoblete, the best-selling author of casino gaming books in the United States, wrote the introduction for that book, it was guaranteed to sell many copies.Quote: WizardQuote: DorothyGaleWalter Thomason wrote an entire book "21-st Century Blackjack" based on a few thousand hands he dealt himself at his kitchen table ... maybe you've got a book here ... keep going ...
Sadly, I bet that book sold at least 100x more copies than mine.
Frank just suggests to everyone to read the book with an open mind.
Does not matter that the content is really useless, it offers simple ideas for the simple minded.
That sells books these days.
KISS
(keep it simple shack!)
added:
Walter Thomason is still quite active on BJ forums.
His claim is that computer simulation results radically differ from actual played shoe results in the win/lose streak area.
And HIS short term results show what can be expected in the long run.
Again, simple minded people follow simple paths.
May 17th, 2012 at 9:59:05 PM
permalink
Yup, Scoblete did indeed write a flattering forward to the book. In response, I would like to say that Frank Scoblete is a very nice man, and the majority of his advice, especially in later years, is to the benefit of recreational players. However...I don't agree with everything he says.
Regarding 21st Century Blackjack I can not come up with one positive thing to say. The only difference between that book and a bucket of s**t is a bucket.
If there is one thing I've learned from the book business it is that people DO judge a book by its cover. They are more likely to buy a book that promises an easy way to win lots of money than a hard way to win a little money -- regardless of what is between the covers.
Regarding 21st Century Blackjack I can not come up with one positive thing to say. The only difference between that book and a bucket of s**t is a bucket.
If there is one thing I've learned from the book business it is that people DO judge a book by its cover. They are more likely to buy a book that promises an easy way to win lots of money than a hard way to win a little money -- regardless of what is between the covers.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 17th, 2012 at 10:22:31 PM
permalink
There you go.Quote: WizardIf there is one thing I've learned from the book business it is that people DO judge a book by its cover. They are more likely to buy a book that promises an easy way to win lots of money than a hard way to win a little money -- regardless of what is between the covers.
Take the cute redhead (Angela) from your Craps video and yourself on the cover of your new book.
She has to be dressed like she is in the videos.
Promise easy ways to play and win at every casino game.
You need many photos of both of you and her or other models in the book.
It will sell.
Start it as an e-book.
I would buy it even if it is the same as your first book!
Think of your kids. I know you do. (Mine are grown, thank goodness, yours are still growing)
just saying...
added: this should be in it's own thread!
Girls Gone Gamblin'
with
the Wizard of Odds
BTW, where is your wedding ring?
May 17th, 2012 at 10:34:33 PM
permalink
IN ORDER:
TheCessPit,
My system is not a Reverse Labouchere, it is a modified version of the Standard Labouchere. It is basically just a Labouchere System that enables the player to cross more than two numbers off of the list with the result of one play.
What you go on to describe is not the Labouchere System in anyway whatsoever. You would not bet $2 on the Line with a starting Labouchere Line of 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, you would bet $4 on the Line regardless. It is an intriguing system, mind you, but strictly it is not the Labouchere.
The main problem you would run into is Line losses without odds losses, unless you just automatically add Line losses (as they are going to be smaller than Edge losses) to the front of your Labouchere line as opposed to the back and try to work your way to the middle. Once again, that's an interesting way to do it, but results-wise, you're basically just playing Labouchere on both seperately when you do it that way. You're essentially trying to have a betting line for the Line and a betting line for your Edge bets.
That's still an interesting system, though. It'd be cool to see that one run through a program a few million times.
The AIM with my system is, very simply, to reduce the necessary winning percentage to profit to something more favorable to the player.
I'm just interested in whether or not it works. I make no claims other than theoretical ones. It could be a complete and total abject failure that is significantly worse than flat-betting. I personally think it will prove better than flat-betting, but will not be proven to beat the house edge in the long run.
MustangSally
I unfortunately have to agree with you that a simulation of 10,000 hands will probably be fairly worthless. It is not because you cannot win enough in that situation, but because it is quite possible that you will, very simply, not LOSE as much as you are supposed to.
I am currently averaging a profit of $1.02985 per hand played. At that rate, it will take me 486 played hands to reach $500, which is the maximum allowable loss for the system. Based on the Realistic House Edge of .42622%, per the Wizard, 10,000 hands at $10/hand average (not sure what my average is at the moment) results in a return of $99,573.78 on $100,000 bet.
Basically, if my system fails to complete a Line three LESS times than it rightfully should, it is going to appear to be an unbeatable system based on the very limited sample size.
In short, you are absolutely right that extensive simulated trial is the only possible way to determine the worthiness (or lack thereof) of the system compared to flat betting. Continued experimentation is, unfortunately, pointless. I must admit, though, that those are some fine-looking tables and were pretty fun to make.
Thank you for kindly taking the time to comment on my post, Sally.
By the way, you can trust on-line Blackjack at Bovada.
guido111
I do not know what you think it is that is coming.
I have no angle, here. I like mathematics and gambling theory. I have fully detailed the reasons for the multiple accounts and have specifically stated to JB that the second account can be deleted, if it suits him, because I have copied the information in quotes.
I would suggest that the Wizard and JB have decided that I am useful enough that I should be allowed to post more, because that Forum setting was changed. (Thank you, by the way, Wizard and JB) I basically just wanted to maintain the thread and respond to people promptly, that's all.
SOOPOO
Thank you for the support.
I agree with the majority of your post. I remain convinced that my Modified Labouchere is probably, at a minimum, superior to flat betting. If there was a way to beat the casino with a betting progression, however, somebody before me would in all liklihood have already figured it out.
I was mainly just interested because I have never heard of the Labouchere being applied in such a fashion.
DorothyGale
I would not write a book if I were inclined to continue this experiment, which I am not. I would post the information here for free.
Wizard
I will purchase your book. Do you prefer that I buy it new, or is it all the same to you if I try to get it used from Amazon?
I just looked, I can get it new for $13.00 (after shipping) on Amazon.com. Is there a way to purchase it directly from you, or will that be fine?
I made the mistake of purchasing 21st Century Blackjack at Barnes & Noble back when I used to live in Kansas City. I keep it in the bathroom in case I run out of toilet paper and get desperate...Seriously, I'm not a professional by any means whatsoever and I recognized that book as garbage on its face.
TheCessPit,
My system is not a Reverse Labouchere, it is a modified version of the Standard Labouchere. It is basically just a Labouchere System that enables the player to cross more than two numbers off of the list with the result of one play.
What you go on to describe is not the Labouchere System in anyway whatsoever. You would not bet $2 on the Line with a starting Labouchere Line of 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, you would bet $4 on the Line regardless. It is an intriguing system, mind you, but strictly it is not the Labouchere.
The main problem you would run into is Line losses without odds losses, unless you just automatically add Line losses (as they are going to be smaller than Edge losses) to the front of your Labouchere line as opposed to the back and try to work your way to the middle. Once again, that's an interesting way to do it, but results-wise, you're basically just playing Labouchere on both seperately when you do it that way. You're essentially trying to have a betting line for the Line and a betting line for your Edge bets.
That's still an interesting system, though. It'd be cool to see that one run through a program a few million times.
The AIM with my system is, very simply, to reduce the necessary winning percentage to profit to something more favorable to the player.
I'm just interested in whether or not it works. I make no claims other than theoretical ones. It could be a complete and total abject failure that is significantly worse than flat-betting. I personally think it will prove better than flat-betting, but will not be proven to beat the house edge in the long run.
MustangSally
I unfortunately have to agree with you that a simulation of 10,000 hands will probably be fairly worthless. It is not because you cannot win enough in that situation, but because it is quite possible that you will, very simply, not LOSE as much as you are supposed to.
I am currently averaging a profit of $1.02985 per hand played. At that rate, it will take me 486 played hands to reach $500, which is the maximum allowable loss for the system. Based on the Realistic House Edge of .42622%, per the Wizard, 10,000 hands at $10/hand average (not sure what my average is at the moment) results in a return of $99,573.78 on $100,000 bet.
Basically, if my system fails to complete a Line three LESS times than it rightfully should, it is going to appear to be an unbeatable system based on the very limited sample size.
In short, you are absolutely right that extensive simulated trial is the only possible way to determine the worthiness (or lack thereof) of the system compared to flat betting. Continued experimentation is, unfortunately, pointless. I must admit, though, that those are some fine-looking tables and were pretty fun to make.
Thank you for kindly taking the time to comment on my post, Sally.
By the way, you can trust on-line Blackjack at Bovada.
guido111
I do not know what you think it is that is coming.
I have no angle, here. I like mathematics and gambling theory. I have fully detailed the reasons for the multiple accounts and have specifically stated to JB that the second account can be deleted, if it suits him, because I have copied the information in quotes.
I would suggest that the Wizard and JB have decided that I am useful enough that I should be allowed to post more, because that Forum setting was changed. (Thank you, by the way, Wizard and JB) I basically just wanted to maintain the thread and respond to people promptly, that's all.
SOOPOO
Thank you for the support.
I agree with the majority of your post. I remain convinced that my Modified Labouchere is probably, at a minimum, superior to flat betting. If there was a way to beat the casino with a betting progression, however, somebody before me would in all liklihood have already figured it out.
I was mainly just interested because I have never heard of the Labouchere being applied in such a fashion.
DorothyGale
I would not write a book if I were inclined to continue this experiment, which I am not. I would post the information here for free.
Wizard
I will purchase your book. Do you prefer that I buy it new, or is it all the same to you if I try to get it used from Amazon?
I just looked, I can get it new for $13.00 (after shipping) on Amazon.com. Is there a way to purchase it directly from you, or will that be fine?
I made the mistake of purchasing 21st Century Blackjack at Barnes & Noble back when I used to live in Kansas City. I keep it in the bathroom in case I run out of toilet paper and get desperate...Seriously, I'm not a professional by any means whatsoever and I recognized that book as garbage on its face.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 17th, 2012 at 10:51:07 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146I will purchase your book. Do you prefer that I buy it new, or is it all the same to you if I try to get it used from Amazon?
I don't want any pity purchases. However, if you do want a copy, it won't benefit me if you buy it resale. Hopefully it won't end up in the bathroom, once you use up 21st Century.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 17th, 2012 at 10:54:50 PM
permalink
This is a proggression variant. EPIC FAIL... no Counting = no Player Advantage.
Had to Edit. Walt used to Post over at H or S, when I was rather active there. About the only thing I advised him to do was use Ace-Five, and bet THAT when +1 or better, and fall back on Progression at neutral count or maybe -1 or -2.
IIRC his optimum, negotiated ramp was 1, 1, 1.5, 2 then return to beginning. This when winning: a loss starts again, and remains 1 unit until the double-win.
Had to Edit. Walt used to Post over at H or S, when I was rather active there. About the only thing I advised him to do was use Ace-Five, and bet THAT when +1 or better, and fall back on Progression at neutral count or maybe -1 or -2.
IIRC his optimum, negotiated ramp was 1, 1, 1.5, 2 then return to beginning. This when winning: a loss starts again, and remains 1 unit until the double-win.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
May 17th, 2012 at 11:10:23 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146IN ORDER:
TheCessPit,
My system is not a Reverse Labouchere, it is a modified version of the Standard Labouchere. It is basically just a Labouchere System that enables the player to cross more than two numbers off of the list with the result of one play.
Apologies, I have no idea why I added the word Reverse in there.
Quote:
What you go on to describe is not the Labouchere System in anyway whatsoever. You would not bet $2 on the Line with a starting Labouchere Line of 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, you would bet $4 on the Line regardless. It is an intriguing system, mind you, but strictly it is not the Labouchere.
I disagree that it is "not the Labouchere System in anyway". It is a modification.
Quote:
The AIM with my system is, very simply, to reduce the necessary winning percentage to profit to something more favorable to the player.
I still don't understand what you mean, I'm afraid. Which winning percentage, which percentage? What's more favourable?
Quote:
I'm just interested in whether or not it works. I make no claims other than theoretical ones. It could be a complete and total abject failure that is significantly worse than flat-betting. I personally think it will prove better than flat-betting, but will not be proven to beat the house edge in the long run. I maintain that it is possible, however, mostly due to Naturals knocking out numbers on the line. You're getting numbers knocked out with no additional bet being made.
I don't think it will do any better than flat betting over the long term. The amount bet versus the amount won in both cases will be the same. What you will change is the number and amount of wins after a "session" in one direction or another.
Run multiple simulations, plot the curve of frequency of result, and you'll see what I mean. It's a useful exercise.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
May 17th, 2012 at 11:39:05 PM
permalink
IN ORDER:
Wizard,
It's not a pity purchase by any stretch of the imagination. God knows you don't need any money from me. I have read any number of articles that you have on your WizardofOdds website for free, and you write very well. I've learned a lot just from reading those. I've also played your Blackjack game, extensively (even before these tests) that you provide for free. It'll be a nice change of pace to read a gambling book written by an honest author.
Where should I go to purchase it directly from you? I can pay either with MasterCard or MyPayLinQ, but I doubt if you take MyPayLinQ. I don't care for Paypal very much.
98Clubs,
I don't think my system could be used in the physical casino, not unless you had the memory necessary to keep your line memorized and make the count. I could pretty much do one or the other, but if I tried to do both, I'd eventually forget what my line looks like. Counting is not a possibility on-line when the deck is reshuffed after every hand.
CessPit,
No need to apologize.
I would call it something else and claim credit for it as a new system. In the Labouchere, you add the front of your line to the back of your line and such is your base bet. You are deliberately not doing that. Further, the low end of your line, taken individually, would need a winning percentage of 50% (or more) to complete successfully, but you're using your high end in hopes of cancelling out your low end.
The percentage of Rounds that you need to win in order to achieve a profit. If you peruse the first set of results, you will see that a flat betting series of $10 per pet would have resulted in a loss for every line except one.
I was getting absolutely killed in that first session, but the Modified Labouchere made money. That's what I mean. The percentage of the time that you must win is pretty low. I lost at least 50% of the time, every time, and my Lost + Push rate was never under 60%. That's a horrible run of cards, but the Modified Labouchere prevailed.
I don't think I want to pay a programmer just to find out if it is better than flat betting, though. That's not the way I would play Blackjack at the physical casino, even if I could. I'd probably try it on-line, though.
Wizard,
It's not a pity purchase by any stretch of the imagination. God knows you don't need any money from me. I have read any number of articles that you have on your WizardofOdds website for free, and you write very well. I've learned a lot just from reading those. I've also played your Blackjack game, extensively (even before these tests) that you provide for free. It'll be a nice change of pace to read a gambling book written by an honest author.
Where should I go to purchase it directly from you? I can pay either with MasterCard or MyPayLinQ, but I doubt if you take MyPayLinQ. I don't care for Paypal very much.
98Clubs,
I don't think my system could be used in the physical casino, not unless you had the memory necessary to keep your line memorized and make the count. I could pretty much do one or the other, but if I tried to do both, I'd eventually forget what my line looks like. Counting is not a possibility on-line when the deck is reshuffed after every hand.
CessPit,
No need to apologize.
I would call it something else and claim credit for it as a new system. In the Labouchere, you add the front of your line to the back of your line and such is your base bet. You are deliberately not doing that. Further, the low end of your line, taken individually, would need a winning percentage of 50% (or more) to complete successfully, but you're using your high end in hopes of cancelling out your low end.
The percentage of Rounds that you need to win in order to achieve a profit. If you peruse the first set of results, you will see that a flat betting series of $10 per pet would have resulted in a loss for every line except one.
I was getting absolutely killed in that first session, but the Modified Labouchere made money. That's what I mean. The percentage of the time that you must win is pretty low. I lost at least 50% of the time, every time, and my Lost + Push rate was never under 60%. That's a horrible run of cards, but the Modified Labouchere prevailed.
I don't think I want to pay a programmer just to find out if it is better than flat betting, though. That's not the way I would play Blackjack at the physical casino, even if I could. I'd probably try it on-line, though.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
