The ideal system for labby

[LetsWin]

(mods - feel free to move this to player's talk if you want)

If one developed (or more honestly, stumbled onto) a method in which neither the winning streak nor the losing streak went beyond 3-5 before a pull-back, would that not be an ideal set up for labby betting...?

This method, btw, favors the play that averages +105.

Of course, if I've miscalculated and the method allows more than 5 straight losses, a second labby line may be used.

What other pitfalls/traps/black swan events (use the metaphor of your choice) is there...?

[FourLengthsClear]

(mods - feel free to move this to player's talk if you want)

If one developed (or more honestly, stumbled onto) a method in which neither the winning streak nor the losing streak went beyond 3-5 before a pull-back, would that not be an ideal set up for labby betting...?

This method, btw, favors the play that averages +105.

Of course, if I've miscalculated and the method allows more than 5 straight losses, a second labby line may be used.

What other pitfalls/traps/black swan events (use the metaphor of your choice) is there...?

Yes but only if there was a logical reason for losing 'streaks' to be shorter than would be seen with a normal distribution. If there is such a logical reason then why is the market not recognising it?

The problem with labby (or any form of chase system) is that calls for bet 2 to be bigger than bet 1 solely because bet 1 was a loss. If bet number 2 has an edge worthy of that size of wager, why wouldn't we be willing to make it if bet 1 was a win?

[samserif]

If one developed (or more honestly, stumbled onto) a method in which neither the winning streak nor the losing streak went beyond 3-5 before a pull-back, would that not be an ideal set up for labby betting...?

Sure. But the expectation that such a method exists is wishful thinking fueled by the Gambler's Fallacy.

[subs]

do u mind sharing why a losing streak would not go beyond 5?

curious...

[LetsWin]

do u mind sharing why a losing streak would not go beyond 5?

curious...

It very well can. In the next day or two, I'll finish back testing to 2009-10 season. I did not state the method is guaranteed to pull back after 3-5 consecutive wins or losses; it is, however, an overwhelming trend I have noticed.

[LetsWin]

Sure. But the expectation that such a method exists is wishful thinking fueled by the Gambler's Fallacy.

Yes, and this is precisely the trap I do not want to fall into. I'm very much aware of the gambler's fallacy. Thanks.

[LetsWin]

Yes but only if there was a logical reason for losing 'streaks' to be shorter than would be seen with a normal distribution. If there is such a logical reason then why is the market not recognising it?

The problem with labby (or any form of chase system) is that calls for bet 2 to be bigger than bet 1 solely because bet 1 was a loss. If bet number 2 has an edge worthy of that size of wager, why wouldn't we be willing to make it if bet 1 was a win?

I simply do not know why the market has not recognized it. Or perhaps it is a situation in which the market will eventually recognize it and make the necessary adjustment. If the latter is the case, perhaps there is a window of opportunity.

[chilidog]

If labby lines were successful, we would all be doing them.

When I saw labbys being discussed here about 2 years ago, I thought that I had found the holy grail. Boy, was I wrong. I no longer do them, and for good reason. You will go on losing streaks, and your bankroll will have to be replenished. While chasing may work in the short term, it is inevitable that there will come a time when your bankroll will suffer, or even be completely wiped out, once a few losing streaks come your way that your bankroll will not be able to recover from without having to add more funds to it.

[samserif]

Here's another way to look at it. Suppose you find a method where a losing streak will never go beyond five loses. At some point, you lose five. Now you can safely bet your life savings on the next pick since it has to be a winner. If this makes you queasy, there's a problem with the premise.

[LetsWin]

Here's another way to look at it. Suppose you find a method where a losing streak will never go beyond five loses. At some point, you lose five. Now you can safely bet your life savings on the next pick since it has to be a winner. If this makes you queasy, there's a problem with the premise.

Now that's a misinterpretation of my originial post.

I never stated the method is guaranteed to go 5 losses and pull back. I can see how some would infer that.

In my original post, I meant to state (and perhaps should have been more clear) that if a method averages 3-5 consecutive wins or losses before a pullback, would it not be a candidate for labby betting.

[thebestthereis]

Fade Lang system works, no bullshit statistics. Fact.

[brandonlewis]

not bad, worth looking into

[samserif]

In my original post, I meant to state (and perhaps should have been more clear) that if a method averages 3-5 consecutive wins or losses before a pullback, would it not be a candidate for labby betting.

Ok, got it. But if you're more likely to win after an initial win than to lose after an initial win (since I'm assuming that a streak of 3-5 is more likely than a streak of 1-2), wouldn't you want to bet more after your first win than after your first loss?

The only (non-contrived) way I can imagine for such a method to work is that it would have some kind of memory; for example, it incorporates new information after every win and it incorporates this information better/faster than the sports books. But if that's the case, then a win should not only be more likely after another win but also more likely than after a loss, so you wouldn't have streaks of losses. This is one reason why I'm having trouble imagining that such a method could exist.

I'm skeptical when I hear mention of methods that generate streaks of wins/losses because people (myself included) tend to see patterns in random processes where there aren't patterns. The statistician Robert Abelson puts it well: "Chance is lumpy".

[LetsWin]

Ok, got it. But if you're more likely to win after an initial win than to lose after an initial win (since I'm assuming that a streak of 3-5 is more likely than a streak of 1-2), wouldn't you want to bet more after your first win than after your first loss?

The only (non-contrived) way I can imagine for such a method to work is that it would have some kind of memory; for example, it incorporates new information after every win and it incorporates this information better/faster than the sports books. But if that's the case, then a win should not only be more likely after another win but also more likely than after a loss, so you wouldn't have streaks of losses. This is one reason why I'm having trouble imagining that such a method could exist.

I'm skeptical when I hear mention of methods that generate streaks of wins/losses because people (myself included) tend to see patterns in random processes where there aren't patterns. The statistician Robert Abelson puts it well: "Chance is lumpy".

Thanks very much for your input. It is sincerely appreciated.

And I do agree that most humans find patterns where none exist; I believe we find some comfort in it. At the same time there are specific patterns which are not figments of the imagination. It is the trap of projecting a pattern onto the method in question that I want to avoid.

I'll conclude my back testing and go from there.

Great feedback from you and others.

[samserif]

Sure, glad to help. You got me thinking about how it might be possible for there to be patterns (winning/losing streaks) within a series of bets, which in turn got me thinking about how the outcome of one pick might influence the outcome of the next pick. It's obvious that a team's performance in one game can help predict their performance in the next game, but not so obvious whether the same holds for sports books. Kinda doubtful, in fact (but not necessarily impossible).

The best I could do is imagine patterns that don't depend on past performance but instead on time itself; for example, a team that performs worse during night games, or maybe even a book that has less sharp or even biased lines early in the week. So there's a pattern, but instead of changing your bet size you can just ignore the less favorable games and bet only the good ones.

[stevex]

Chili, what you say is true IF and only IF you don't use proper money management...

Obviously there will be losing streaks, that is a guarantee, but if your saying that your bankroll is getting completely wiped then your obviously NOT doing the labby correctly..

[chilidog]

Chili, what you say is true IF and only IF you don't use proper money management...

Obviously there will be losing streaks, that is a guarantee, but if your saying that your bankroll is getting completely wiped then your obviously NOT doing the labby correctly..

The labby isn't rocket science; it's very easy to figure out. I don't see how it's possible to do it wrong. With a labby, you are chasing your losses. And if chasing losses worked, everybody would be doing it, and Vegas wouldn't have those big resorts.

Labby lines are not some hidden secret that few have discovered. They've been around for quite some time now, and they just don't work. You will go on extended losing streaks, and it will wipe out a chunk of your bankroll. It's not a matter of if it will happen; it's a matter of when it will happen.

[stevex]

Labby lines + a couple of good systems = slow and steady profit

Period.

I'll take that any day

Chili I understand you know how it works and what not. You're right, it's not rocket science, but lets meet half way here. When your on a losing streak, re-adjust your lines to fit within your limits. That my friend isn't rocket science either.

[jerry]

Labby Lines = gamblers fallacy

[stickbit]

sorry Jerry, stevex is 100% correct...labby works. if you run it correctly and practice solid money mgmt. you will profit slowly.

[evo34]

sorry Jerry, stevex is 100% correct...labby works. if you run it correctly and practice solid money mgmt. you will profit slowly.

You will profit slowly, until you don't. Then you will lose massively. Lemme guess: you also play roulette. It's amazing how some people are incapable of understanding the basics of independence of events. I get that the orig. poster was claiming he had found events that were not independent, but: a) there is ~ no chance that is true; b) if it were somehow true, the correct way to exploit it would not be to every game, but rather to wait for the situations with highest expected edge, and then to size bets accordingly.

Again, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy. When you've finished, read it again. Unless successive bets are correlated, there is no unit-size-based-on-previous-bet-result system that will help you.

[FourLengthsClear]

sorry Jerry, stevex is 100% correct...labby works. if you run it correctly and practice solid money mgmt. you will profit slowly.

This is an oxymoron.

Placing a bigger bet after a loss simply because it was a loss cannot be, and will never be "sound money management".

Any form of chase system will mask -EV plays only until you hit whatever streak of losses in needed to ensure that big hit to your bankroll.

If the individual plays have -EV you are going to lose in the long run with Labouchere just are surely as you are with Martingale or with straight betting. That it not opinion that is mathematical fact.

If the individual plays have +EV then Labouchere is inferior in the long run even to straight betting with a sensible wager size.

[samserif]

For all the labby fans and other advocates of chase system, please explain the following to me:

I wake up this morning and see only one game I want to bet on. I call my twin brother and it turns out he wants to make the same bet and no other bets either. Coincidentally, we each have exactly $100 in each of our accounts and we both have the same level of confidence in the bet. So, given all that, shouldn't my brother and I both bet the same amount?

Notice that I didn't say how much I lost yesterday vs. how much my twin brother won yesterday.

[stickbit]

Amazing....I guess none of you guys have ever seen anyone use labby lines with a couple great chase systems? I made 50 units on jm nba last several seasons doing it and that is a fact. Oh well some will never understand.

[bztips]

Guys, just give it up. People like stickbit know what they know (and don't know what they don't know), and no high-falutin' math is going to make them change their mind...

[ferndog]

What i hated about the labby was trying to choose what my big play would be. So if i had to clear a line because a string of losses sometimes it was hard to find out what would be the best play to try to get rid of that line.

[keel44]

I would like to state that a team's performance throughout a set number of games can and will be streaky. I would also state that the odds do not change very much on winning or losing streaks.

IF you can make a prediction for a set number of games following one team, that team's performance may very well fall into your prediction. And yes, if you raise your bets on that team, and they finally perform as you predict, you can profit.

I remember last MLB season, somebody on this forum created a thread stating "Now is the time to start fading the Pirates". He showed the Pirates upcoming schedule. He figured they were just pretenders. The very next day started a 10 game losing streak for the Pirates. They tanked for the rest of the season.

My point being........You can make a sweeping generalization about different betting scenarios. If you combine an "up as you lose" money management strategy, you just might survive long enough until that scenario finally comes to fruition. Always remember a team's performance can be quite streaky. Maybe you can catch it.

I play from this perspective. Take a look at my spreadsheet since Jan. 1. Play around with it and see if you can follow what I am doing.

http://keel44.mysbrforum.com/spreadsheet/

[keel44]

I am now 15 - 4 when I risk $25 or more. I am not using a labby, but something similar. Go ahead play around with my spreadsheet to see how I choose to play the sports betting game.

[JOe K>]

This is an oxymoron.

Placing a bigger bet after a loss simply because it was a loss cannot be, and will never be "sound money management".

Any form of chase system will mask -EV plays only until you hit whatever streak of losses in needed to ensure that big hit to your bankroll.

If the individual plays have -EV you are going to lose in the long run with Labouchere just are surely as you are with Martingale or with straight betting. That it not opinion that is mathematical fact.

If the individual plays have +EV then Labouchere is inferior in the long run even to straight betting with a sensible wager size.

What is a "good" system chase or otherwise? Is the standard 1%, 2% max bet a good system. Or is that more of a money management strategy.

[ghislaine]

Labby is solid if You begin betting 0.01 up to 1% of Your bank with a profitable system or hitting above 50%. You can always readjust lines, absorb bigger bets into smaller ones or even out the numbers by adding them all together and then dividing. Showing profit labbying for three years now. Started betting 2usd bets on a 1000usd account. That small !