Roulette Beating Random by Betting Random

Too many obstacles in Roulette, especially on a 00 wheel. The -EV is just too high with Sir Anyone's extra pocket and wrong payout, yada yada yada. Baccarat is much easier, and where I migrated to last year after researching everything possible. It's a world of difference, not sure why anyone even bothers with other games...easy money to be honest.

 

I agree with you whole heartily. Is there any particular Baccarat strategy you use?

 

Does the Labouchere System Work?
Because the Labouchere can return a profit through winning less bets than you lose, there are those who believe it works. Indeed, you can make money using this system if you manage to avoid going on a lengthy losing streak. The problem is that there is never any guarantee that you won’t go on a lengthy losing streak. In fact it’s quite likely that you will if you play often enough or for long enough.

By increasing your stakes after every loss, a losing streak can result in the required stake getting too high. You may not have sufficient funds, and even with a huge bankroll there are betting limits to consider. Basically, one way or another there will come a time when you cannot make a bet at the required stake. Reaching this point will almost certainly cost any profits you have ever made previously with the system, and possibly a great deal more too.

The reason some people are tempted by the Labouchere, or any negative progression for that matter, is because they simply don’t think that they will ever lose enough bets in a row to cause a problem. For example, they assume that if they see a red number a few consecutive times at the roulette table then it has to be black soon.

This is not true though. The roulette wheel has no memory and, even it has been red 20 times in a row, the chances of the next number being red are always exactly the same as it being black. The mistaken belief that a black number becomes more likely after several red numbers are spun in a row is known as gambler’s fallacy. This fallacy has led to many gamblers losing substantial sums of money, and you really don’t want to do the same.

In Summary
The Labouchere is ultimately not a great system. Although you can lose more bets than you win and still make a profit, there is too great a chance that you will eventually lose substantially because of a long losing streak. You might get lucky using it a few times, or even for a prolonged period of time. The likelihood, though, is that you will eventually end up out of money.

While we don’t particularly recommend that you use the Labouchere, we do understand why it might be tempting. If you’re prepared to accept the risks and have the discipline to ensure that you stop playing when the bets get too high then you can have some fun with it. You may well have a few winning sessions, and you’ll just have to hope that your losing sessions are not too bad.

source: gamblingsites.com

 

Evidently you haven't been playing much baccarat. You'll find that you'll be a long term loser with it as well.

 

You remind me of a parrot who has learned only one phrase: You'll be a long term loser. You'll be a long term loser. Squawk. You'll be a long term loser. You'll be a long term loser. Squawk.You'll be a long term loser. You'll be a long term loser. Squawk, squawk.

 

Perhaps not. I'm at 1200 shoes played over the past year, +4304u.

If the end is coming, going to take a long time to get here, and take dozens and dozens and dozens of losses in a row just to get back to break even.

Bet selection in Bacc is a bit of a fool's errand, none of it provides an edge, but MM can give you some luck if you're sharp.

 

Mako ,




My experience tells me that you are for real not like those pseudo wannabes claiming success at NON monetary on line casino games .








ND
























\











. bad weather included losers will always find an excuse for their losses .















Those cats do not know how to WIN.

 

I think single zero ECs with la partage rules (50% return on zero -1.35 EV) are fine as well.
You get 3 data streams playing that way and it is not hard to place the bets at 2 tables.

 

Neither one will beat a -EV game. Never has nor will it ever.

 

Variance(in negative) indeed is the main culprit apart from the ignorance of players of basics. House edge is easily beatable. House edge makes a room for negative variance by itself too.

 

@Bago,
I am not endorsing labouchere or any other oldschool progressions but just citing the proof that a money management could beat even the worst possible, without requiring millions of chips as happens with the case of martingale and not just a meagre house edge. All the oldschool progressions are disasters and not usable, as it is. My MM is based upon labouchere but innovative enough to ever lose big with that. In the worst possible cases, it could take longer to win back all losses than standard labouchere but it will never make one lose pants. It would swiftly win average and a little below average sessions too.
I know my claim may look outrageous to many of us here but with a very thoughtful way of money management which takes care of variety of variance and have safety features and a vision for long run winning with lesser wins than losses, anybody can win, for sure, sooner or later or say in long run.

 

Albalaha,

If you replace "variance" with the word "luck" then you'll come to realize just how foolish your claims are.

Good luck.

 

That's BS. In 200 hands the overall percentage of winners may be at least a third, which is enough theoretically for a labby to beat, but there will be long clumps of losing hands in which the percentage of winners might only be a fifth, or even less. For example try using a labby on the following outcomes and see how large the stakes get.

L
L
w
L
L
w
w
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
w
L
L
L
L
L
w
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
w
w
w
L
w
L
L
L
L
w
w
w
L
L
L
L
w
L
w
L
L
L
w
L
w
L
L
L
w
L
L
L
w
w
L
L
L
L
w
L
L
L
L
L
w
L
L
w
w
L
L
w
L
L
L
w
L
w
w
L
L
L
L
L
w
w
L
L
w
L
w
w
w
L
L
L
L
w
w
L
L
L
L
w
L
w
L
w
L
L
L
L
L
L
w
L
L
L
w
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
w
L
L
L
L
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
L
L
L
w
L
w
w
L
L
L
w
L
L
w
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
w
L
w
w
w
w
w
w
L
w
L
w
L
w
L
L
L
w
L
w
w
w
L
w
L
w
L
L

 

To all the boys here that say nothing works please what does does work I woul like to hear this you know you are .and I ask this question seriously

 

Warrior, you are asking those who say nothing works, what does work. They already answered your question. Nothing works.

 

Cowboy figures out the people from the Ozarks, LOL!

People that are has-beens or computer gamblers with no real money, generally say the same stuff over and over and over and over and over and cite things like long term, long term, long term, long term, long term, long term.

Get the picture?

Ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore.

Or you can move to Elnora, New York like I did and enjoy the great outdoors and down to earth people!

 

What works for one may not work for another, particularly if there's a subjective element to how the strategy is applied. You have to find what works for you, what you personally are comfortable with. After that, it's test test test, using actual spins or hands, at least 50,000+, manually logged.

Most are not willing to do that, to do what's necessary to see how good (or bad) a particular play style can get. How big was the largest draw down during that 50,000 spin or hand block? How much bankroll would I need to endure it? How long did it take to recover (if it does at all)? Where are the weaknesses, when should I attack, when should I withdraw?

Only massive levels of testing can even begin to answer some of those questions, and in my experience 99% of message board readers aren't willing to commit to testing beyond say a thousand spins or a thousand hands...both of which are useless in terms of truly seeing the whole picture.

 

I guess .
It’s either wobble wheels or roulette computer for these guys so then why waist your time on forums for systems players don’t get it .

 

True that

 

Which of course is nonsense. If something only works "for you", that just tells you that you won because of luck, nothing to do with the system. If something really works then it works for everyone.

But you're right that people don't test enough. You have to test beyond the point at which luck runs out, to know that it's not luck.