@ Law,
        Incredible stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                Can someone please show this step by step, preferably in an excel sheet? The given session was the worst EC case that I got in a million spin analysis that lasts for 1600 spins.  Beating this successfully means we can beat the worst stretch of an EC that should come in a million spin (little worse is possible too but this one was standard example of long lasting and irritating variance). I can't understand as explained or exhibited in the text file but it is serious.
                      If someone does this step by step, I will put another similar session. If that gets beaten too, with the same methodology, we need a tracker of this way of playing.
              Great job after a long time. I hope calculations have no fault.

@Law,
       Will your 65 step labby or 50 step labby (pick any one you like) clear entire 1600 spins with a net win?


@ Maestro,
            Same question for your suggested progression.




We may reverse engineer any given/known session and create a progression that can beat it but that is not workable in random sessions.
           If any of your progression beats this 1600 spins entirely, I can give another similar case and if they win both, everybody will admire that.

@Law

QuoteUpdate!!!The sequence that was previously a bust, has been beaten with a 65-Line Labby. Here are the results:

Buddy, if you re-configure the solution as per the problem, anything can be beaten but there has to be a general strategy to play because we can't guess the kind of variance that we may get in a coming session.
          Plus, if your strategy wins in 1600 bets somewhere, try to bet same way the entire 1600 spins. If it wins even 1 unit finally, it is worth re-looking.


@Maestro,
   You said:

Quoteno...you get labby and start bet spin 1, bet spin2 , spin 3 no bet, bet spin 4    ,no bet spin 5,6,7, bet spin 8,no bet 9,10,11,12,13,14,15 , bet spin 16,then start count again as after 16th spin is spin 17 so for your count spin 17 will be spin 1,spin18 will be spin 2 and so on...

Would you mind showing this on the given data, for the sake of clarity?

QuoteUpdate : Labby failed at bet #126 of the sequence provided  - Thanks for your help-much appreciated!!!

No pushing progression can sustain till the variance can drag us. If it gets possible, playing roulette will become a fearless job.

Sure,
          I am giving the L/W of this in a text file here.

@Law


       Please try to do this real data with worst "High" EC bet over 1600 spins. If your any progression wins over this data without getting too deep in drawdown, it is really worth focusing upon. I worked upon a variety of Labouchere (including my own versions) and found it promising but only if u have millions of chips.

Nothing of this sort is possible. I saw or have rather used one program of a russian guy with same claims. It was claimed to work upon playtech RNG casinos. The claim was either childish or shrewd. It said that chose  your bet that u want to win and it will kind of intercept the casino server to get you exactly that. Can you believe this? This way, only three spins will make casino go empty.

I often play a multi side attack method on 1-2 numbers. This way, it will be impossible. The table limits should be for every bet not cumulative.

This system has been sold with dozens of names. It is only as good or bad as playing anything else. A bad sequence will make losses irrecoverable.

Ken,
        Even if someone picks  one or two numbers to bet by the best logic, it may still have the same fate as of selecting one/two fixed numbers, in any session. No betselection will give you win in continuous and flat betting. It is mainly about "how much", "when" and "why" than "what" to bet.

Ken,
             If you can bet upto 3 nbrs, I would recommend Finale.
Like you get 21, now u can bet other numbers ending with 1 like 1,11 and 31.
Hey, but in American Roulette, when 0 finale hits you need to bet 4 nbrs. lol


              If you are rigid about only 2 nbrs, I would advise betting two unique nbrs that hit prior to three latest numbers.
For example,
              latest number in right side:
   15,27,32,0,26,26,2,11,2
              Here, latest three unique nbrs are 2, 11 and 26, so we can bet 0 and 32


Betting two numbers can be very rewarding as well as very frustrating.

Randomness does have a virtual limit. It is not possible to get infinite variance. Those who haven't observed the game enough and merely read a few lines like, "every spin is independent of all previous ones" or "a million monkeys can type a work of Shakespeare" or " it is possible to get even 100 reds in a row" are misinformed people and they never bothered to see the randomness' reality.
            Have a look to see the virtual limit of randomness: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/13069557/Virtual-limits-of-different-bets-of-roulette#.U5RPtHKSxhU

QuoteRandomness has no limits.

     It shows how much you know about randomness and probability. I won't argue with you because it would be like talking to a wall. Enjoy your brilliance.

QuoteAnd yes, every spin is independent.

If every spin is independent of past decisions, why on the earth, since roulette got invented, none has seen 50 consecutive hits of an EC?
Why no 10 consecutive his of a number ever came?
                                        Independence of a single spin does not mean that every spin is free to generate any outcome till infinite. It only means that looking at past outcomes, u can't decide any better bet in one single spin.
        Collective probability of many consecutive spins and probability in one spin, are different.


It seems people enjoy to be mislead.

Xander,
                Either you did not get my question or trying to avoid it.
         two probabilities:  1.Getting 9 reds in a row
                                       2. Getting 18 reds in a row


                If every spin is independent, both should be equally likely. Are they?