General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Can anyone explain a staking plan where you have a row of numbers 123456789 and you add the 1-9 together and work you way through the numbers adjusting stakes. What's it called. And is it recommended. Cheers all
Show More
It is. I use "Reverse" for my sports betting and works well (started separate banks for football and baseball).
with reverse, you generally bet smaller after each winner, where as with normal you bet bigger. is that the net result Shapeshifter.
yes the Reverse Labouchere. bet is 1+9 if it comes in you add 10 to the sequence, if it goes down cross out 1 and 9 and next bet is 2 + 8. A chap called Norman Leigh (13 against the bank) claimed he invented it, not sure if true though.
The reverse labouchere program available below simulates a team of twelve players playing for one day on two tables and calculates the result of the day's play. A sample of 1,000,000 daily profits was generated using the reverse labouchere simulation, which can be used to estimate the underlying sampling distribution.
The histogram of results to the right provides a useful approximation of the sampling distribution of daily profits. The vertical red line separates the losses from profitable samples. It should be noted that the distribution is asymmetric since maximum losses are capped at the team's combined initial bankroll for the day, 14,796 francs. Without this limit I am fairly certain that the results would be normally distributed. This could be checked by giving the players infinite bankrolls, however this is of no real significance.
The mean of the samples is -1055 francs and the standard deviation is approximately 7840 francs. The histogram indicates leptokurtosis, with much of the data concentrated about the mean while a small amount is distributed along the long right tail. This is a dangerous property for a roulette system; not only is the expected result a loss, it seems that it is difficult to achieve any profit at all.
Analysis
Only 21.85% of the sampled days were profitable, with the average result being a loss of 1055 francs. These two fundamental facts immediately indicate the failure of the reverse labouchere system and attention shifts to determining exactly how unlikely were the results claimed by Norman Leigh.
In Thirteen against the Bank Leigh claims to have achieved daily profits of over 100,000 francs on a number of occasions. The simulation results show a maximum profit of 86,578 francs, with only 0.00005% of the sample exceeding a profit of 80,000 francs. The table below compares Leigh's results with the sample and gives an estimate of the probability of observing a result at least as good as Leigh's on each day.
Day
Leigh (francs)
Proportion of sample at least as good
1
78,000
0.0007%
2
130,450
0 %
3
66,165
0.004 %
4
67,000
0.0033 %
5
55,385
0.0216 %
6
123,003
0 %
7
159,666
0 %
8
119,595
0 %
Roulette spins can reasonably be modeled as independent, and so the total probability of observing results at least as good as Norman Leigh over the eight days combined can be calculated by multiplying the above probabilities. This is clearly zero, however even if we ignore the most exceptional days with zero terms the estimated probability of observing four days as good as those remaining is 1.99584e-18, roughly a 1 in 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance (this is one in five quintillion).
Norman Leigh has been proven to be a total bullsh itt er previously
The histogram of results to the right provides a useful approximation of the sampling distribution of daily profits. The vertical red line separates the losses from profitable samples. It should be noted that the distribution is asymmetric since maximum losses are capped at the team's combined initial bankroll for the day, 14,796 francs. Without this limit I am fairly certain that the results would be normally distributed. This could be checked by giving the players infinite bankrolls, however this is of no real significance.
The mean of the samples is -1055 francs and the standard deviation is approximately 7840 francs. The histogram indicates leptokurtosis, with much of the data concentrated about the mean while a small amount is distributed along the long right tail. This is a dangerous property for a roulette system; not only is the expected result a loss, it seems that it is difficult to achieve any profit at all.
Analysis
Only 21.85% of the sampled days were profitable, with the average result being a loss of 1055 francs. These two fundamental facts immediately indicate the failure of the reverse labouchere system and attention shifts to determining exactly how unlikely were the results claimed by Norman Leigh.
In Thirteen against the Bank Leigh claims to have achieved daily profits of over 100,000 francs on a number of occasions. The simulation results show a maximum profit of 86,578 francs, with only 0.00005% of the sample exceeding a profit of 80,000 francs. The table below compares Leigh's results with the sample and gives an estimate of the probability of observing a result at least as good as Leigh's on each day.
Day
Leigh (francs)
Proportion of sample at least as good
1
78,000
0.0007%
2
130,450
0 %
3
66,165
0.004 %
4
67,000
0.0033 %
5
55,385
0.0216 %
6
123,003
0 %
7
159,666
0 %
8
119,595
0 %
Roulette spins can reasonably be modeled as independent, and so the total probability of observing results at least as good as Norman Leigh over the eight days combined can be calculated by multiplying the above probabilities. This is clearly zero, however even if we ignore the most exceptional days with zero terms the estimated probability of observing four days as good as those remaining is 1.99584e-18, roughly a 1 in 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance (this is one in five quintillion).
Norman Leigh has been proven to be a total bullsh itt er previously
If the individual bets are not value, no staking plan in the world can help you.
People constantly rate stakings against "if I be against every ______".
What I did was create banks for each sport so that if one sport was doing well, I ramped it up for that sport uninfluenced by my lack of ability to pick a winner in another.
It works for me and keeps my perspective in place.
It comes down to a person's abilities, as well. No staking plan can make you a better gambler.
What I did was create banks for each sport so that if one sport was doing well, I ramped it up for that sport uninfluenced by my lack of ability to pick a winner in another.
It works for me and keeps my perspective in place.
It comes down to a person's abilities, as well. No staking plan can make you a better gambler.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539