As an example....

Let's say I start with a line comprising of 1 1 1 1.

My first bet is 7 splits = 14 numbers.

I will place 2 chips on each of the 7 splits according to the rules.

A win would return me 36 chips meaning a gain of 22 chips.

My line now reads 1 1 1 1 2.

Now here is the interesting part. Suppose my average bet was only 7 splits. This will leave me with a residue of 8 chips.

The 2 on the end of my 1 1 1 1 2 line is the equivalent of 14 chips.

So I could now add an extra 1 to my line if I liked just to act as a bit of insurance and reduce the risk of a couple of losses wiping out my line quickly.

I would now have 1 1 1 1 1 2.

Let's say my line got to the following stage....

1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 7

...and so I was betting 9 x 7 splits = 63 chips.

A win would give me a residue of 36 chips.

I could then add a couple of extra 2's to the left hand side of my line.

It does seem that there are some nice possibilities with the Reverse Labouchere.

This MM plan is traditionally played with the even chances, however I think it would be open to more manipulation playing something like the splits where you were not always necessarily betting the same amount (ie 9)

A bet selection which maybe ranged from 6-9 splits would allow you to have what I will call 'carry over' units. These extra units could then be added into the line to act as a cushion. One of the potential downsides of the Reverse Labouchere is that you are crossing out two figures on a loss and only adding one on a win.

I would like to start a thread on this particular MM plan with the idea of just experimenting and to see if it can be improved upon. This one fascinates me and I think it's possible that it could be manipulated to great effect.

Here is just one idea that I found on another forum. (see pdf attatched)

Thank you very much for explaining that Bayes. 

Sam

I am just trying to get my head around a few things and would appreciate any input!

Here is the thing.....

Singles are twice as likely as doubles and doubles are twice as likely as triples etc...

That to me also means that we can go in reverse. A second loss is half as likely as an isolated loss and so on....


This is where my negative expectation question comes into things.

The NE supposedly stays the same on every round. HOWEVER my chances of winning are increasing if a second loss is half as likely as the first loss and so on.

Maybe I am completely confusing myself 

A single could be either RED or BLACK.

If I decide to bet BLACK.. the odds are 1/1. Same as if I decide to bet RED.

Going for any double... RED BLACK, BLACK RED, RED RED, or BLACK BLACK is 3/1.

So I am twice as likely to get my single bet up as I am getting the double.

 
You will see twice as many singles as doubles.

Twice as many doubles as triples.

Twice as many triples as four timers etc...

A single is 1/1.

A double (parlay) is 3/1.

A triple is 7/1.

A four timer is 15/1.

Just getting a few opinions would be great as well. 

We all know that you will get twice as many singles as repeats and so forth....

So my question is the following.

Let's say you are playing a martingale. {1 2 4 8} Are you subject to the same negative expectancy on every bet?

Surely the answer then is to play on the NO ZERO wheel at betvoyager and pay them the 10% tax from your winnings.

lol

They hang salami up as well don't they!

You know what! I am not even going there! 

Sputnik

There is nothing really worth sharing from the book.

It is a little bit outdated really.

My idea of something that could work is the Guetting betting between 8-14 numbers. However that might be stretching things a little too much.

Betting 12 numbers returns 2/1. You can increase a winning bet by 50% and still retain some profit. That appeals to me as a way to get some good leverage going. Any kind of progression should not be an excuse to bet on every spin and I think a cautious approach to some of them could really help a player out.

cheers.

This is a lengthy thread which some of you may find interesting.

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-rigged-rogue-software.html

Hello Sputnik

The only mention of the fibo in this particular book (beat the casino) is on page 76.

It just looks like a plain 12 step fibo to me...

1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 (risk 608)

He did go on to mention that he thought this method would be ideal for team play.

"one could use it eight hours per day for a solid week with reasonable expectation of winning about $20 per hour and having not a single series loss. A husband and wife team betting opposites could anticipate $40 per hour profit"

He went on to say....

"If one were to use this method for three to five hours at single zero roulette, the odds that he'd never lose his bet series would be enormous - surely better than 5/1"

Well, I don't call 5/1 odds enormous myself. He does seem to enthuse more about this method compared to the others he talks about.

cheers 

Quote from: monaco on January 17, 2013, 10:28:33 AM
lol


Is eating horsemeat really that bad though? Let’s put it to the vote - all those in favour say ‘aye’, all those against say ‘neigh’ 

I heard this morning that a German supermarket is bringing out its own range.

My LIDL pony!