Playing Craps using Labby

Kaabee · 02-21-11, 01:14 AM

no system can change the house edge on these games. end of story.

Duff85 · 02-21-11, 02:03 AM

Long term you play these you lose. Table Limits will eventually kill your double ups.

chipper · 02-21-11, 02:39 AM

I've tried a labby playing the don't pass on dice. I won several times. I got pretty cocky and thought I had the "Holy Grail" of dice systems. But then one night at the Suncoast I got my as* handed to me and lost not only all I previously won but my entire bankroll as I watched everyone around me getting rich on an incredibly hot table.

DustyDiamond · 02-21-11, 11:31 AM

This is true, if you pay in the long run you will always lose, but I'm talking short term. For example you have a labby line of 1-1-1-1 and you have a 1000 unit bank roll you have a 1.3% chance of losing you entire bank roll while you have a 98.7% of winning the 4 units. The average trial per session is about 21.7 and total bet per session would be about 227.0. The smaller the bank roll the bigger the chance of losing it. If you have a 100 unit bankroll you have a 10.6% of losing it all. The numbers change a bit on Roulette, a 1000 unit bank roll has a 2.7% chance of losing it all and a 100 unit roll has a 15.3% of losing it all. Numbers come from wizardodds.com

Kaabee · 02-21-11, 02:47 PM

all these systems amount to is risking a lot to win a little. sure, the % of time you lose a lot is small, but it happens and it will ruin you in the end.

chipper · 02-22-11, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by DustyDiamond

This is true, if you pay in the long run you will always lose, but I'm talking short term. For example you have a labby line of 1-1-1-1 and you have a 1000 unit bank roll you have a 1.3% chance of losing you entire bank roll while you have a 98.7% of winning the 4 units. The average trial per session is about 21.7 and total bet per session would be about 227.0. The smaller the bank roll the bigger the chance of losing it. If you have a 100 unit bankroll you have a 10.6% of losing it all. The numbers change a bit on Roulette, a 1000 unit bank roll has a 2.7% chance of losing it all and a 100 unit roll has a 15.3% of losing it all. Numbers come from wizardodds.com

1-1-1-1 was the exact Labby I used when I lost. My units were $5 (the table minimum). In retrospect, based on your numbers, my bankroll was probably too small as I only brought $500 to the table with me. Obviously I fell into the 10% you mentioned. But it still sucks to lose $500 trying to clear a $20 Labby line.

Scahom1 · 02-22-11, 08:21 PM

What is a labby?

Ralphie Halves · 02-23-11, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by DustyDiamond

This is true, if you pay in the long run you will always lose, but I'm talking short term. For example you have a labby line of 1-1-1-1 and you have a 1000 unit bank roll you have a 1.3% chance of losing you entire bank roll while you have a 98.7% of winning the 4 units. The average trial per session is about 21.7 and total bet per session would be about 227.0. The smaller the bank roll the bigger the chance of losing it. If you have a 100 unit bankroll you have a 10.6% of losing it all. The numbers change a bit on Roulette, a 1000 unit bank roll has a 2.7% chance of losing it all and a 100 unit roll has a 15.3% of losing it all. Numbers come from wizardodds.com

Ignore the people telling you that you'll lose all your money. They've never done it this way, I guarantee it.

I did exactly what you did on ******** casino. Started with $1000. Did lines of 1-1-1-1, then moved up to 1-1-2-1. +$1200 later, got an email from ******** telling me to stop using algorithms or my account will be closed. They misdiagnosed what I was doing, but I stopped anyway. I have a few grand in their sportsbook, and I like it, so I clammed up and quit.

The key is, if you ever go $300 down on one line, scrap it and start over. This will rarely happen, but it will prevent you from losing it all if your bankroll if you don't have a few grand already in there to absorb the bad runs.

I just did pass line. Best odds, and you wont

every time a point of 4 or 10 hits like you would if you played don't pass.

DustyDiamond · 02-23-11, 04:34 PM

Thanks for the info Ralphie, when you played were you laying odds?

Ralphie Halves · 02-23-11, 06:55 PM

No. Difficult to make your labbies come out right if you do that.

Kaabee · 02-24-11, 12:06 AM

you will lose all your money eventually. it's a mathematical fact.

DustyDiamond · 02-24-11, 05:09 AM

I know your right Kaabee, but maybe using labby will slow down the rate of losses

Ralphie Halves · 02-25-11, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Kaabee

you will lose all your money eventually. it's a mathematical fact.

Is there math out there to specifically disprove split martingale systems like labby? Or are you just throwing old outdated truisms out there?

DustyDiamond · 02-25-11, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Ralphie Halves

Is there math out there to specifically disprove split martingale systems like labby? Or are you just throwing old outdated truisms out there?

If your playing on a table without a max the math is probably in favor of labby, table max may bite if there is a long streak of losses.

Kaabee · 02-26-11, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by Ralphie Halves

Is there math out there to specifically disprove split martingale systems like labby? Or are you just throwing old outdated truisms out there?

100% there is. it's just a click away. if labouchere was actually profitable, 99% of the people on this forum would be making money off of it, all the casinos would be broke, and idiots like you would be a dime a dozen, oh wait, they already are.

DeenerThaLeener · 02-27-11, 06:47 PM

I like the idea of labbys, never done a split martingale but my experiences with them have always ended badly. Seems like to me that in the end they just won't be profitable, just my experiences