Reverse Labouchere: The rebuttal to the rebuttal ... in fact the final rebuttal

General / Wayne Bailey / 19 August 2008 / 3 Comments

There's been a fair bit of banter between two of our columnists in the last few days but the article below will bring it to a close. Ladies and gentlemen, Wayne Bailey replies to Jack Houghton's criticism below...

With the big meeting at York - and Tralee also taking place this week, I'm somewhat reluctant to continue the argument about Reverse Labouchere. However, it's time to bring this 'debate' to a close.

OK Jack, I probably came across a bit angry in my reply to your rebuttal article, and I suppose it's right to say I was a little bit touchy. But you caught me at a bad time - Dublin had just crashed out of the All Ireland Championship in their worst performance in 20 years. I was already having a bad day when I read your article!

I can take a bit of stick now and then; it goes with the territory. I've wrote for many websites and newspapers over the years, one of which was Ireland's biggest selling daily - so if I was the type of person to shy away from criticism, I certainly wouldn't put my work out so openly. I can take a joke too, but your rib-tickling as you call it, described my work as. "Imbecilic, ill-advised, and downright hazardous". Maybe my sense of humour is not what it should be, but insulting me personally is not all that funny I'm afraid.

But first, to the matter at hand: the Reverse Labouchere (RL). It's pretty obvious that you dislike it as a staking plan, but I went in with an open mind and as I mentioned, it was new to me, as I don't touch casinos or games. Of course, any staking system comes with some positives and negatives, and this is somewhat different than the Martingale in that it increases stakes dramatically after a win, while decreasing after a loss. It's not really comparable to Martingale - a strategy I loathe by the way, having done my brains on it as an ill-advised teenager at Leopardstown some years back!

You seem to assume that I'm one of those idiots on the web promoting this sort of thing and promising millions. But I'm not an idiot, and I wasn't promoting the strategy either. When researching the topic, I checked the web of course; but I also read through a vast array of books that I've collected on racing and betting. In a number of books by well-respected writers, the RL cropped up in various guises. In fact, Dave Duncan (author of a number of popular racing books) states that - under the right circumstances - it's the best staking plan he's ever came across.

Now, I'm not so easily convinced, so I tried it out for myself - simple as that. My article does not support it, nor dismiss it. I tried it out, published the full results, gave some thoughts; but want readers to make up their own minds. I believe our readers can do that, you see. None of us on betting.betfair.com can provide the Holy Grail for punters. We can merely discuss racing and all it involves. That of course, includes things like the RL - simply because it's out there and being used. But it appears that you came in guns blazing as you've already decided that you don't like the system. As soon as you seen what my article was about, you had your mind made up as to my stance on it. I simply tried it out and published my results for all to see. If you don't like what you see, that's fine. But I did not - I repeat - DID NOT tell the reader to use the plan. Testing it does not assume I somehow, by proxy, advocate it. But by discussing it, I'm open to the likes of your good-self rubbishing it. That's OK though, because I displayed the results so people could decide for themselves. In fact, I said my findings were not conclusive. I don't mind if you say that RL is rubbish, but attacking my work personally is where it goes beyond rib-tickling.

I can take a joke, and we've had some good banter on this site regarding trends before, but this time, I did take exception to some of your comments and feel I should clarify one or two points in particular:

Firstly, you state: "We were treated to an example of how the system works; following its fortunes over the course of 22 bets (selected using a groundbreaking betting system). The result? Well, it was an overwhelming success: showing a clear profit."

The fact that you call my selection process 'groundbreaking' hints at needless sarcasm and cynicism about my betting strategies - that's why I came back here and defended my record on this site and questioned yours. I take your point though, that your job is not to tip - so I'm happy to withdraw those comments.

The selection process I used is irrelevant anyway. I could have tried it on the favourites. I could have used my favourite jockey silks! Rather than doing that, I thought it would be better to try it on a betting strategy I advised some months back. The fact that the strategy only ended up having 22 bets is not my fault. I'm a man of many talents, but persuading Aidan O'Brien to run more horses in certain races is not one of them! In retrospect, it needs more selections, but that's why I said the results were not conclusive. I never said it was an overwhelming success as you state. What I actually wrote was: "So a profit of 20 quid or so is shown overall - but that was mainly thanks to a good run at the end"

I could have tried it as you suggested, with various other staking plans including levels but as you know, a word limit must be kept - and that article wanted to explain the RL rather than staking in general. Indeed, it doesn't take a genius to work out how well or poorly it would perform under a different staking plan as the results and horses are there to see.

In fact, I think that by publishing a full table of running P&L, readers can see for themselves how dangerous the RL can actually be (as well as potential benefits when a winning run happens). At one stage, it was £62 in the red - quite a lot when you consider the starting stake was a modest £8.

I do agree with one point you make: "Too many punters spend too long focusing on the irrelevant minutiae; when they should be looking at form."

This is very true - but staking is a very important part of betting. If you stake wrongly, you can turn a strategy that has a level stakes profit into a loss. I simply looked at one type of staking plan and laid bare the benefits/downsides in black and white in (well, red and blue actually!) in a table. The rest of my article merely introduced how it works, and I posted a couple of thoughts afterwards. Nowhere do I advocate our readers to use it. In fact, in my final paragraph, I state: "Certainly, with a good string of wins, the bank can build rapidly - but things don't always work like that in racing!"

The reason I state that the jury is still out is because (as mentioned) it really needs to be tested on something with a high strike rate (SR); as opposed to the horses I used which ended up having a 40% SR. Testing it on a very high SR strategy could be an article for another day, and such an article could also expose the potential dangers of RL too. I've been testing it on a 70% SR strategy at home, and the results are proving negative for the RL idea as the stakes get scarier. In fact, that set of results would probably frighten anyone away from using it, and it shows the huge downsides, as well as the gains when it hits a winning run - but is there any point in even publishing those results a few weeks down the line if I'm going to be personally ridiculed by my fellow betting.betfair.com contributors?

In your reply, you state: "I chose to "take apart" your article in this one instance is that I felt it sufficiently ill-thought through and misleading to dedicate a full response to it."

It's not misleading. It was a real test on real horses using real money. I did not fit or make up the results. It shows each bet broken down and the fact that it finished in front was a mere circumstance not fixed by me in any way. Again, the fact that I posted the table should show the negatives of the RL staking strategy too, as it hit some big losses along the way.

Another insult in your comments reads: "Given the ridiculous points you put forward in your article, perhaps I should have remained aloof. But I didn't. I got involved and dissected it. The autopsy discovered the subject had died of extreme stupidity."

I could go on and continue with this ad-nauseum, but responding to pure insults is a waste of time when you've missed the point of the original article, and still assume I'm the RL number one fan. I urge you to have a read again.

Jack - I did not give it an overly positive spin. I mentioned that it would possibly work better by having a 'get out' point, and if you want to see that as a promotion of the RL, there's nothing I can do about that. But I don't advise punters to use it anywhere. The main positive things I say in the article about RL are as follows: "The idea is well thought out and fairly sound. It works by dramatically increasing stakes after a win, while at the same time, it gradually decreases the stake after a loss"

But note that I go on to state that things are not so simple in this game. After reading my very last comment on the RL ("The jury is still out..."), most readers would be intelligent enough to deduct that I've sat on the fence, and haven't decided either way.

Jack, like you, my main brief here is not to be a tipster. I'm here mainly to discuss the Irish racing scene. That scene involves some level of tipping, but it's not my sole purpose. When there's not much happening in Ireland, I usually write about betting strategies, trainers and jockeys etc; most of which have been popular with the readers. I don't mind valid criticism of that work, but not plain insults.

You are a writer I respect - in fact, when I moved away from being a bookie shop punter and entered the very exciting world of Betfair a few years ago, your book was an invaluable reference. But you've miss-interpreted my article badly. Having successfully worked as a pro-gambler, I'm well aware of how hard it is to churn a consistent profit, and there's no staking plan or system on this earth that can substitute hard work. It's not for me to decide for our readers if they want to try out a staking plan, including RL. It is my job, however, to discuss my experience of it in an honest matter. The fact that you've been so insulting to my work so much says more about your style than mine.

As I say, there are more important racing matters at hand so hopefully this can be put to bed. Unless of course, you've more to say on the RL - but frankly, with so much racing on - the readers deserve better from both of us.

Comments (3)

1. graham cunningham | 19 August 2008

   a lengthy rebuttal

2. Wayne Bailey | 19 August 2008

   True Graham, but I wanted to be sure I've included everything and can finally forget Reverse Labouchere. I've been dreaming about it and talking about it in my sleep to the missus - not very romantic!

   These can be my final comments on it (the ed will be glad to know).

   Wait 'til he sees next weeks article on reverse Martingale.

   (joke!)

3. Jack Houghton | 19 August 2008

   Many of these are fair points Wayne, and given the length of our debate so far, I won't add to it. I think there is more than enough across the three articles for readers to digest if they're interested.

   All I'll say is that I regret the snide nature of my original article and would write it without the personal jibes if having the opportunity again.

   I would make an excuse for this - such as stress - but the reality is that snideness is pretty much my default state of mind. So please accept my apologies for any offence caused.

   And finally, I would like to stress again that I have no problem with you or your work in general, it was just this specific article.