Author Topic: Belgian's Labby  (Read 5921 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 3
Belgian's Labby
« on: October 19, 2014, 09:40:28 PM »
Hi everyone...

New to this forum, but I would like to draw everyone's attention to an old thread, which can be found if you look at posts under the name "Belgian" regarding the use of the Labouchere system.

I would just like to ask if anyone is using or is still interested in the strategies described, and could help me on a couple of points -

I understand we are looking for 65 wins in 200 spins. What is not mentioned is that it is not 65 reds and 135 blacks, but 65 reds and 135 blacks PLUS 0s, which offsets the balance, if I am correct.

Could someone clarify, if we are trying to get a 75:25 ratio on pairs of bets, then some of our 65 wins will be used up, without a win, because if we get a RR pair, we will not bet on the second red, and not gain that win.

Anyone tried using the "pair" idea, if so how does it affect our 75:25  ratio? For every RR there is a RB, so maybe they balance each other out, if you see what I mean?

Any help with this would be really appreciated! The 65/200 and 75:25 seems like it could be a winner to me...



Re: Belgian's Labby
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2014, 11:06:36 PM »
Hello daveylibra and welcome to our forum.

That thread you mention:,8.0.html (Belgian's Labby) is together with the Johnson progression probably the most important threads in our forum. This is why they are "sticky".

First of all in the 135-65 distribution the zeroes are included in the 135 losses. So no need to worry for less than 65 hits.
Secondly, I agree that I have my reservations about the "pairs" idea. I'm not sure however if the pairs idea means that you don't bet the next spin if you win. I understand it as mini-martingale, so after a win we bet again with minimum bet. But I maybe wrong (it has been some time since I read the thread).

There have been extensive real life and theoretical tests on Belgian's Labby and the results are very optimistic.
I hope Fripper, who has studied the system extensively can chime in and shed some light on the very interesting issue you raise.


Re: Belgian's Labby
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2014, 04:56:06 AM »
Belgian's Labby or HP Johnson Progression has nothing so great about it, in its original shape. It merely works like flat betting, labouchere and Martingale combined into one and these progressions run after one another, end being a dangerous martingale.
 I was always fascinated with labouchere and after reading "13 against the bank" by Norman Leigh, I analysed every possible form of it but as any other progression, it has its own limits. Since you can not see the future wins and losses and their order or length, you will often get trapped with playing this progression. If losses come clustered at wrong places, it can be as bad as original Labouchere or Martingale itself.
                I tried it manually, then got it coded by a programmer for further research. I learnt vba coding editing too( I can't code in vba but can edit the parameters, if already coded) and the progression proved to be as futile as anything else. Every progression has its limits and it won't beat each and every probability ever within a reasonable limit. You need to understand that some sessions are meant to be lost only. The day someone can win the worst possible stretch(like 65/200 in an EC) in all forms, within a reasonable bet limit, casinos will bleed dry.


Re: Belgian's Labby
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2014, 05:43:24 AM »
Hello albalaha,

What you say makes no sense. Flat betting and Martingale are two completely different approaches, how can you imagine that Any system can be both. Belgian's Labby is an extremely conservative progression and has nothing to do with flat betting or Martingale. Obviously you do not understand it correctly. So any results you got from your interpetation of the system are irrelevant.

Belgian's system has great potential and the specific thread is the most thought provoking discussion about the Even Chances I have ever read.


Re: Belgian's Labby
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2014, 07:19:53 AM »
        It seems that you have never bothered to analyse it, apart from reading it. What does "64 Zeros and a 1" means?
If we start with like this: 00000000000000000000000000000000............1

all our initial bets will go flat, later when all zeros get filled, it will work like labouchere because we will bet adding two figures and at last when only two digits remain in the progression line and losses comes there, it is an ugly martingale.
         This strategy, like any other poor or good progression, will work in a given condition only and is no panacea to extreme variance. I can give u even 80/200 hit rates where it will fail to earn anything while hitting sky high bets.


Re: Belgian's Labby
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2014, 02:25:03 PM »
It is so many times said, nosystem can beat the roulette. The knowledge of random rows is the basic for succes. See my diagram about the long run strategy.
A strategy take mostly no more than 10 events. The long run theory is worthless for these small sampels. The results of a 200 events sample are within a small variance predictable.
There are beautiful systems.
The excelprogram is very useful to test nearly every system. Without 200 events testresults it is an infinity dicussion.

I am very proud on my SSB system. The excelprogram is free ordered. Mail  ""and I send you a copy.


  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 3
Re: Belgian's Labby
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2014, 12:07:17 AM »

Thanks for all the replies. Would just like to make these points -

1) Maths tells us that roulette cannot be beaten, because of the negative
expectancy / house edge. BUT maths would also tell us that 50 reds, for example,
is possible. If we assume that this kind of scenario will not happen, and if we
keep to the 65 / 135 principle, then maybe the game can be beaten.

2) On a more pessimistic note, I understand from this forum that a labby,
mathematically, will not work. (I have asked a maths graduate about this, who
could not formulate the proof.) Anyway, assuming this is the case, look at it
like this -
Suppose we bet red, starting with 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
After a bad run, we have 15, 15, 10, 5, 5.

We have a target of 50. We are told we can extend the list. So we could have 
a list of 50 1s. We could also have 10 sets of 5 1s. Which is exactly what we
started with. So does this not prove that the idea will not work?

3) Regarding the "pairs" idea. If we bet red, starting with 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
Suppose we have BB (two blacks.) What then? Is it 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4?
After another BB, is it 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 10?
Seems like the values could rise very quickly.
Or am I misinterpretating? I know it has been explained before, but I am still not
clear. A pity that Belgian has not posted for some time.
Could anyone help me on these points?


  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: Belgian's Labby
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2014, 07:14:17 AM »
The approach 65/200 is very clever,but is not enough.
Theoretically is easy to win 65 bets out of 200,but from a pratical point of view the bet increases to a very very high level(more than max bet allowed).
Tested several times and that here above the conclusions.
The system doesn't resist even if the permanence is not particularly dramatic.


Re: Belgian's Labby
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2014, 09:10:41 AM »
It is not sensiblel to built a system on numbers. The average of a streak is 37^number of figures.  The streak RRRRRBBBBB occured on average once on 2^10 throws

Bet on such a streak with the Martingale schedule.The advantage of a FR is that the zero works for the player. This system is an alternative for my SSB. See my graphic ,the profit is about 70 units on 150 throws.