Three-Team Rolling Labby MLB

I know there's plenty other labbys out there, but rather than scouring the internet I'm working on one of my own...what I'm thinking is to run three lines, and take your best of your top-three picks each day and have it play your toughest line and have your worst of your top-three picks each day play your best line. Now these should be your top-three, however you arrive at them, and then order them from worst to first...you can win less than 50% and have this thing pay, is my understanding and what my very limited midnight to 5:00am research is showing...your top three should easily be able to meet those requirements...I read some about spreading out the losses on a Labby, but I haven't found anything too unconfusing about how to do that, so if you want to explain it, go ahead.

Anyhow, will work like so:

Day 1

Pick 1 - Bet 2u
1 1 1 1

Pick 2 - Bet 2u
1 1 1 1
 
Pick 3 - Bet 2u
1 1 1 1

L/L/W

Day 2

Pick 1
1 1 1 1 2

Pick 2
1 1 1 1 2

Pick 3
1 1

W/L/L

Day 3

Pick 3
1 1 1 1

Pick 1
1 1 1 1 2 3

Pick 2
1 1 2


I don't know...it's late! But I'm thinking by applying highest probable winner to the lines that need it the most you can keep losing streaks from blowing up your lines too much, unless you happen to have #1-pick losing streaks a lot, in which case you're probably me. Ideally though, thinking 50 W% for pick-3, 53 W% for pick-2, 56 W% for pick-1, worst case. With this you should hopefully be kicking good lines ready to be cleared down to your #3 50% of the time and trimming down the big lines some 56% of the time with your favorite. A work in progress, but I like it! Thoughts? As far as picking the winners you could just choose the hometeam EVERY TIME for pick-three and automatically get a 52 W% (-ish) :) Or of course you could develop a handicapping system of some merit to compliment your money management system, but that would require far more thought than these wee hours allow for. :)

what the hell is this??? dude, we all understand labby but dumb it down. Looks like the periodical chart.

Labby lines don't work, I guess they can but I think they are garbage. If you post back and tell me to go to some website, I'm going to tell covers to delete you.  Labby is fine IF YOU PLAY one play per day. WHO DOES THAT????

5AM speak, whatdya want? I'm running my 3-line labby now, I'll letya know how it goes. Basically your most likely winner out of your best picks gets the worst line, and the worst of the three gets your best line, all in an effort to clear the lines and make your profit. We'll see!

Dude!

I like this. It might be fun to try it on the MLB this year, playing the top 3 faves while rotating the labbys. Nice work. B2W is right, it looks a little confusing at first, but I think I get it.

Are you going to post a system using it? Good luck.

Thx for the ideas!

Actually, I get it now. Was in a p.o. mood for that moment. It was the wifes fault. Thats my story and Im sticking to it. Anyway, Doesnt look too bad. You are right about only having to win less than half the time. Actually, you really only have to win one third the time. Only pyroblem is when WE DONT. Your labby CAN work. I know because after taking a look at this, This was my first betting scheme I used to win with. It "works" but like I said i ran into probs when I lost more than 3 straight for one particular labby line. Somehow losses seem to gravitate to the losing line. I quit playing this because of that reason. Losses mounted up and then I added my losses to "other" lines as not to bet so much. Instead of three 1 1 1 labby line I went to three 3 3 3 labby lines. It became astronomical. My initial math of only having to win one third of my games went out the window. JV knows a lot about the labby and i even followed the link she posted a few years back. I couldnt do it though. Im a martigale guy that modifies it. Keep going with ur idea and ignore a negative post, even from me. Ur on the right track btw. Sorry bout the bad post. Wife made me mad. :0

Wish I knew how to decipher your info.

First of all, what is a 'line'?