Double Dozen Reverse Labby and beyond - in-depth

[falkor]

Hi, can anyone please confirm which of these methods is correct or most valid? Is there any other methods/variations that you know of?

Also, I would like to discuss the viability of adapting this to cover 5/6 double streets? Would it mean a higher bank roll? More attack time? More losses compared to winnings? Waiting longer for a big win? Wins never that big? Or vice versa? How exactly would you perceive and describe such an adaptation - I doubt it's been tried/tested before? Is it worth wasting energy over?

I thought it was a production from 'mr oops' and I was right, lol.

Anyway I have to mention that this is a copyright (2000) but he gives permission to distribute it as long as I mention the copyright. (shit, where did 11 years of my life go  )

This was one of his ideas for using a reverse labby if you were wanting to bet 2 dozens or columns. I have never really looked at it in detail but methods I have developed in my blog may compliment something like this.

ok, here it is:

SOLUTION? SO, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? The problem is that you, when betting on two dozens or columns at the same time and one of them hits, you will only get half of your total bet in net gain and, as this winning is going to be "put onto the line", you will get an ever decreasing line. Try it!

THIS IS MY SOLUTION: Set the bank-roll to 20 units for a session and write a line looking like this:

2 - 4 - 6 - 8


As you can see, all figures are even. This is because we are going to bet two bets at the same time, so we have to split the bet into two parts. To make this an automatic task, we avoid all un-even figures...

Now, the first bet will be (add 2 + 8} 10 units split into two parts = 5 units for each dozen (or column). Suppose we win. The bet was 2 times 5 and one bet was lost and one bet won twice its value, returning only 15 units! That is 5 unit in profit. The way I see it, there is no place on the line for a figure "5". So, I'll quite simply note it on the paper and bet the same bet a second time.

Suppose we lose this bet. It was made out of 2 + 8 so we cross them out and the line looks like:

X - 4 - 6 - X


Remember the noted "5"? The next bet will also be (add 4 + 6) 10 units - 2 bets of 5 units each. This time we win and we win 5 units. Now, there was another "5" noted so we add them together getting 10 which we put on the line:

X - 4 - 6 - X - 10

The next bet is (add 4 + 10) 14 making it 7 units on each dozen/column and we win 7 units and we NOTE it only and bet a second 2 times 7 bet. We lose and cross out:

X - X - 6 - X - X

...and a noted "7". We bet 6 (2 x 3) and win 3 units. Now there are two ways to go and I prefer one way but cannot say that one is the better. The first way is direct: Add the noted "7" to the won 3 making a total of 10 to put onto the line, making it look like:

X - X - 6 - X - X- 10


The next bet would then be 2 times 8 (6 + 10)... and you must add or subtract one if you get an odd figure...
The second way, my preferred way, is to add equal figures only, like the two 5s earlier. So we note the "3". One reason: There will automatically be only even figures to put onto the line. A second reason will be revealed as we play a few spins more with the line looking like:

X - X - 6 - X - X

and we have a "7" and a "3" noted. So the next bet is a second 2 times 3 units and we win 3 units. We now have two equal figures to add - the noted "3" and the won, making a total of 6 and, when put onto the line, it looks like this: X - X - 6 - X - X- 6

We still have a "7" noted! The next bet is 2 times 6 and we lose and we cross the 6s out, completing the session. We lost the bankroll on the sequence: W - L - W - W - L - W - W - L. NO! And this is the second reason, why I prefer this way: We had the "7" noted; it's a win that has not been used so, in fact, we lost "only" 13 units. This means that sometimes the line can be completely crossed out but there are more than 20 units noted and the net result is actually positive.

Two Dozen Labouchere System is a modified version of a core system named Labouchere System. It is an extraordinarily cautious system, which brings you measurable profits and fun along with keeping your capital safe. Let’s get to the point.





How to play:

a)      At first you have to write down a series of numbers of any length such as 1-2-3-4-5 etc.

b)      Your stake always responds to the sum of the first and the last number on your list, in our example it equals 6 (1 + 5 = 6)

c)      You pick any 2 dozens of the 3 available (1-12, 13-24, 25-36) and bet only on two of them!

d)     You bet 6 chips each on dozen 2 (13-24) and 6 chips on dozen 3 (25-36)

e)      If you win, you cross out two numbers, one from each side. In this example these numbers are 1 and 5 (2, 3 and 4 remain). Thus, the new stake equals 6 as well (2 + 4 = 6)

f)       If you lose, you write down the stake you lost and you add it to your number sequence. Since you lost both of your dozen bets, you add double 6 to the list, which now looks as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6. The new stake equals 7 (1 + 6 = 7).

g)      You proceed analogically, i.e. you cross out two numbers each time you win and write down two numbers each time you lose.

h)     The system ends the moment there are no numbers left on your list.




As you can see from this example Two Dozen Labouchere System is very straightforward and your bets cover 24 out of 37 fields (as shown below)! It allows the Player to stay in game for a long time, even without sizable capital. Appropriate staking plan reduces the risk of losing your money, making roulette even more pleasant experience!

EDIT: I seemed to have lost my source for the 2nd method, but it involved dividing parts of the sequence by 2 or something along those lines.

[falkor]

The source for the other Double Dozen Labby is now quoted below, but I don't think it's the Reverse version that I really wanted guidance on; nevertheless on initial inspection it seems different to the other method (quoted) above, so the question might be: which is the correct version of standard Double Dozen Labby that we could look to reverse/engineer? How might we go about doing it? Or did Mr Oops totally get it right?

Let's try to apply it on Dozens. We bet one Dozen. One dozen normaly hits once
every 3 roulette spins. Also, because the payout of the dozen is 2 times our
bet, a win recoups two losses. We want to recoup more losses with a win, say 4
losses. We apply the Labouchere by adding the last 4 numbers of our sequence and
dividing by 2 (because the payout on dozens is double our bet).

Example:
1,2,3
bet: (1+2+3)/2=3
lose, add 3 to the end
1,2,3,3
bet: (1+2+3+3)/2= 5 (rounding up)
lose, add the 5 to the end
1,2,3,3,5
bet: (2+3+3+5)/2= 7 (rounding up)
lose, add the 7 to the end
1,2,3,3,5,7
bet: (3+3+5+7)/2=9
lose, add 9 to the end
1,2,3,3,5,7,9
bet = (3+5+7+9)/2=12
lose, add 12 to the end
1,2,3,3,5,7,9,12
bet: (5+7+9+12)/2=17 (rounding up)
win (34 units payout since we bet a dozen), erase last 4 numbers
1,2,3,3
bet: (1+2+3+3)/2= 5 (rounding up)
win (10 units)
End game

In 7 roulette spins, with 5 losses and 2 wins, we won 8 units. (the initial
sequence was 6 units, but we won 2 additional units from rounding up)
Read more: Progressions and outcome sequences

Source: Roulette 30
EDIT: It seems this system is only playing one dozen? I'm having a bad day as you can tell, but I guess having the single dozen methods and double dozen methods on the same page can help with understanding the double one better, which is really what I am interested in here.

[falkor]

My initial thoughts are that Mr Oops has got the modification slightly wrong based on the problems with odd numbers and having to split the bet across 2 dozens. Let's examine the following:

2,4,6,8 (dozens) = 1,2,3,4 (even chance)

W, L (2 dozens) = W, L (even chance)
Even chance = -1
Mr Oops = -5 (-10 + the noted down 5)
Rounding down = -1
Rounding up = -3

W, W, L (2 dozens) = W, L (even chance)
Even chance = -1
Mr Oops = 0
Rounding down = 1
Rounding up = 3

W, L, W, W, L (2 dozens) = W, L, W, L (even chance)
Even chance = 0
Mr Oops = -7
Rounding down = 1
Rounding up = -1

Since we are meant to be using the Casino's money for positive progressions it would seem rounding up or rounding down would be the way to go based on the *rough* comparisons above: I would bet that rounding down after a win is more faithful in the long run.