Author Topic: Johnson progression  (Read 45791 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2010, 09:27:33 AM »
Hi OPT,

example according aggressive version, 9 imaginary zero's and a one (that is what you suggest). we play on Red. For 75:25 we bet on pairs:

start Labby 0,1

R 1 unit win
B no bet (ending first pair) EOS

R 1 unit win
B no bet EOS

R 1 unit win
R no bet EOS

R 1 unit win
R no bet EOS

B 1 unit loss
B 2 unit loss (ending first pair) Labby now: 0,1,1,2

B 2 units loss
B 4 units loss (ending second pair) Labby now: 0,1,1,2,3,3 (4+2=6:2=3)

R 3 unit win Labby now: 1,1,2,3
R no bet (ending third pair)

B 4 unit loss
B 8 units loss (ending fourth pair) Labby now: 1,1,2,3,6,6

R win 7 units Labby now: 1,2,3,6
R no bet (ending fifth pair)

B 7 unit loss
R 14 units win (end of 6th pair) Labby now: 2,3

R 5 unit win
B no bet (ending seventh pair) all figures canceled in the Labby End of session.

Total session: +5 units.

if 9 imaginary zero's are replaced by figures, the next loss bet has to be divided between the figures 9starting from the lowest ones.

The power of the strategy is that at any time when the run is very bad, you can divide your bet in more figures, keeping the bets low. keep in mind that if you divide a bet in 6 figures the odds are down to 1:1 (with the -1.35% of the zero). Also you can use more imaginary zero's to keep the bets low. You can easily adapt your Labby according to the trend of the permanence. You always have to end the Labby, there is no stop/loss limit.
With the sure fact that in 200 spins there are never less then 65 of one color, you can always adapt the Labby in a way to be 100% sure to end it, without reaching the table limits. I recommend starting the Labby the way described and when things go bad, adapt it to the way you still feel comfortable with the bets to be placed. If you start a lot more safe, it takes also a lot of time to win the easy and most frequent one's, so my advice is to adapt during the bad streaks.

Hope this helps,
Belgian
 

Hann

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2010, 09:29:37 AM »
I think I understand, Belgian. Just in case though, could someone summarize what has been said up to this point. I understand labbys and such, but I do not follow the "pair" bet and the Lose/Win strategy for a pair bet.

Also, lets say somehow you're still in the labby, but with only one bet to go, 1,1. Your bet has already shown 64 times. Now what? You follow me? Seeing as how we can't extend the labby at this point, we just have to wait it out right?
 

heir2fortune

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #32 on: January 01, 2011, 12:37:46 PM »
Hi Belgian.

In Ur bet analysis, how are U choosing which "pairs"Ur running, and Y?

Is it a routine ie. R-R, R-R, R-B, R-B, B-R, B-R, B-B, B-B  ?

A bit like travelling around a 'Cul-de-sac' ?

Cheers
Heir.
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1933
  • Thanked: 923 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2011, 09:54:33 PM »
Hello heir2fortune,

I believe Belgian keeps betting the same outcome.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 09:57:40 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

RXcoder

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2011, 10:12:08 PM »
Thanks folks for this great thread. This deserves some serious coding for RX, so here it is:
First the Johnson progression. I plan to post a code for Belgians method too..

Quote
System: "Johnson Progression"
{
*************************
*  Johnson Progression  *
*************************

Method:
Start with a series of 20 times 1 in a list. (this will be your win)
Play first+last term like a Labby. (first bet is 2)
When you win: cancel the two terms.
When you lose: distribute loss over the 20 terms from left to right in the series,
starting from the previous entry point.

When betting amount is more than 20 units. Redistribute over 20 locations.
}
method "main"
begin
while starting new session
    begin
    call "init"
    end
   
if red lost each time
    begin
    put 100% of record"bet amount"data in record"loss"data
    call "distribute loss"
    end
   
if red won each time
    begin
    call "cancel two terms"
    end

//bet
call "calculate bet"
put 100% of record"bet amount"data on red

end

method "init"
begin
set list [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1] to record"labby series"data
put 1 in record"loss pointer"data
call "reset"
end

method "reset"
begin

end

method "cancel two terms"
begin
if record"labby series"data count > 1
begin
clear record"temporary series"data
put 0 in record"temporary series"data index
put 2 in record"labby series"data index
loop until record"labby series"data index = record"labby series"data count
    begin
    add 1 in record"temporary series"data index
    put 100% of record"labby series"data in record"temporary series"data
    add 1 in record"labby series"data index
    end

if record"loss pointer"data > 1
    begin
    subtract 1 from record"loss pointer"data
    end
if record"loss pointer"data > record"temporary series"data count
    begin
    put 1 in record"loss pointer"data
    end
duplicate information from record"temporary series" to record"labby series"
end
else
    begin
    //labby series is empty
    call "init"
    end
end

method "calculate bet"
begin
if record"labby series"data count > 0
begin
put 1 in record"labby series"data index
put 100% of record"labby series"data in record"bet amount"data
//find last unit in labby series
loop until record"labby series"data index = record"labby series"data count
    begin
    add 1 to record"labby series"data index
    end
add 100% of record"labby series"data in record"bet amount"data
end
else
    begin
    //labby series is empty
    call "init"
    end
if record"bet amount"data > 19
    begin
    call "redistribute losses"
    end
end

method "distribute loss"
begin
loop until record"loss"data < 1
    begin
    put 100% of record"loss pointer"data in record"labby series"data index
    add 1 to record"labby series"data
    add 1 to record"loss pointer"data
    if record"loss pointer"data > record"labby series"data count
        begin
        put 1 in record"loss pointer"data
        end
    subtract 1 from record"loss"data
    end
end

method "redistribute losses"
begin
put 0 in record"loss total"data
put 1 in record"labby series"data index
loop until record"labby series"data index > record"labby series"data count
    begin
    add 100% of record"labby series"data in record"loss total"data
    add 1 in record"labby series"data index
    end
put 5% of record"loss total"data in record"redistribution unit"data
if record"redistribution unit"data > 9
    begin
    call"init"
    exit
    end
clear record"labby series"data
loop until record"labby series"data index > 20
    begin
    put 100% of record"redistribution unit"data in record"labby series"data
    add 1 to record"labby series"data index
    end
put 1 in record"loss pointer"data
end
 

OPT

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2011, 10:15:32 PM »
Hi Belgian,

Thanks for sample run. I do not completely understand it and I still have opened question. I hope that you do not mind that I ask further silly questions?

I have completely understood the sample run in regards to Labby with pairs betting, but on the other side I am missing the following:

What are 9 imaginary zero's? How do you play?

Would you mind run the sample again for playing 9 imaginary zero's?

I do not follow statement, would you please explain it in more details?

"if 9 imaginary zero's are replaced by figures, the next loss bet has to be divided between the figures 9 starting from the lowest ones. "

Thanks in advance.
OPT
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2011, 10:29:44 PM »
Hi all!

Hann, OPT,

Although I am aware that in most of the threads in this topic I was not very clear in explaining in detail this method, I thought the last one playing the run given by OPT made everything very clear.

There are no "fixed rules" in this method, only guidelines to be interpreted by anyone individually, according to their own expectations and goals. That means for example that you can play with relative high stakes to reach EOS very fast, or that you can choose to start very conservative and be willing to play for extended time in order to keep the bets as low as possible. Or you can choose to adapt during bad streaks which I think its the best option. There are no rigid rules for these individual decisions, but they should, however, always be based on the strong principles of this method.

Hann, heir2fortune,

The pair based strategy is included to get rid of long losing streaks, as the odds are 3:1 to win a pair bet. This was done to lower the risks that it becomes hard to end The Labby. If you have a streak of 22 reds for example (which was the maximum found in The Hamburger Permanences through all the years through all tables) that means you have a losing streak of 11 according to the pair bet. This is the example of the most bad encountered streak. If you check the according permanence of this streak you will see that after that streak the recovery was very fast. But... off course the bets will raise relatively fast during this streak (which you will only encounter maybe 1 time in 3 years if you would have played at all tables the same time every minute of the day that the tables are open). So here comes the individual aspect: you can choose to play it through according the aggressive progression which means that you are willing to place large bets like 200 or even 300 units, or you can choose to divide the lost bets in first 3, later 4 and maybe even 6 figures that will be added to the Labby. In practice it will mean that your bets will be a lot lower, but it also means that the EOS will be postponed accordingly. Everybody has to be his own judge to use the dynamics of the Labby to get the personal balance between the bets to be placed and the the duration of the run.

Always keep in mind the basic of the method: you can play with the Labby during a bad run to feel comfortable with the bets to be placed, as long as it in the end will not exceeds the 65/135 distribution after 200 spins, which will always be reached and has to give EOS. In theory it means that you can replace imaginary zero's till you have 130 figures in The Labby, because this averages 65 wins. Off course in practice this cannot be a practical aim, to play 200 spins to get 1 unit of profit.

OPT,

Imaginary zero's means simply said that you can add more figures to The Labby as long as you wish. If you play with 9 imaginary zero's, you can add 9 figures (4 losing bets in a row). Afterwards if you encounter a losing bet you will distribute the figures in the most economic way:

example : 0,1,1,2,3,3,4,5,9,9 is reached after 4 losing bets in a row. If you don't want to use more imaginary zero's (which I would not recommend) then the next losing pair bet ( 9+18=27) will distributed amongst the figures like this for example (of course you are free to do it which way you want)

new Labby: 0,6,6,6,7,7,7,7,9,9. Off course you can also raise the zero if you want.

My advice is to stretch the imaginary zero's adapted to a bad run as long if you feel comfortable with the bets.

In 99% of the time your EOS will be reached very fast, but to handle the occasionally bad runs is the key for success.

If one likes he can also use trio's instead of pairs to get 8:1 odds to reduce even more the risks of long losing streaks. Then you can choose for example to divide the losing bets in 4 figures to add to the Labby. The possibilities are endless. You have a method with lots of room for flexibility for the parameters:

- betselection in way's of pairs or trio's to "reduce" the odds
- flexibility of number of imaginary zero's (stretching the Labby)
- flexibility of dividing number of figures to add to the Labby

The last 2 have to be used to fully control the bets during long losing streaks. One always has to have in mind the way it influences the number of bets needed to reach EOS in terms off odds against the (pair) bet: if you divide a losing bet by 3, you need 1.5 win to recover that bet, divide by 4 it needs 2 wins, etc. But because it is advisable to start with dividing a losing bet in 2 figures, there is consequently a lot room left for extended figures to still control the odds in the long run in combination with full control of the bets.

I hopes this will help, unfortunately my English is not that well that I am able to explain it more clearly I am afraid.

Best regards,
Belgian
 

OPT

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2011, 10:37:25 PM »
Hi Belgian,

Thanks for the explanation. I completely got it.

OPT
 

doc

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2011, 10:38:58 PM »
Hi Belgian:
Well I’m glad I am not the only person having some difficulty with the whole double concept. I was starting to feel a little embarrassed asking you to explain the same thing over and over again.
Is the main reason you are incorporating the doubles to protect you against the long streaks? Have you tried my suggestion in regards to backing off after 3 losses in a row? This would obviously protect you from the 22 in a row streak.
You might be destroyed by the “two two’s” pattern (RRBBRRBB) but there are ways to protect yourself against that with a few minor modifications.
I also recalled another interesting Labby variation called the “Midas Method” from the book by the same name. You might find this of some use. After several losses in a row the author would bet the table minimum. I don’t see why you could not change that to a zero bet unless the house decides you can’t sit and play unless you bet. Anyway, it would look like this. I will use the line 1,2,3,4,5 just to demonstrate. (I am going to assume that the table minimum is $10 and that 1 unit =$10.00.) After 3 losses in a row the line would change in the following manner. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. So, instead of making the next bet of 9 units or $90.00 just bet 1 unit or $10.00 (The table minimum.) until you win a decision. Then return to your progression. So, if you lost 3 more times the line would change to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,1,1.
As I mentioned you could use the zero bet in the following manner. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,0,0,0.
You can also come back to your line after the wins start and shorten it to improve on the “1 win wipes out 2 losses” benefit of the Labby. So, for the first line add the three 1’s back into the line either at the beginning or the end. It would look like the next two examples. 2,3,4,4,5,6,7,8 or 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9. The zero line will kind of take care of itself.
Using this method the 6 losses will be wiped out by two wins and as many as eight losses could be wiped out by that same two wins.
Just an idea.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3951
  • Thanked: 1273 times
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2017, 02:08:26 AM »
Just thought I would add my take on how one can quickly test this method.

Simply play the labby to achieve a total won session of 365 units; every unit won equals a day.

Here is some work I did awhile back on 18 numbers:

Code: [Select]
18,26,1,
18,27,1,
18,28,1,
18,29,1,
18,30,2,
18,31,3,
18,32,3,
18,33,3,
18,34,4,
18,35,4,
18,36,4,
18,37,5,
18,38,5,
18,39,5,
18,40,5,
18,41,5,
18,42,5,
18,43,6,
18,44,7,
18,45,7,
18,46,7,
18,47,8,
18,48,9,
18,49,9,
18,50,9,
18,51,9,
18,52,9,
18,53,10,
18,54,10,
18,55,10,
18,56,10,
18,57,10,
18,58,11,
18,59,12,
18,60,13,
18,61,13,
18,62,14,
18,63,14,
18,64,14,
18,65,14,
18,66,14,
18,67,15,
18,68,15,
18,69,16,
18,70,17,
18,71,17,
18,72,17,
18,73,17,
18,74,17,
18,75,17,
18,76,17,
18,77,18,
18,78,19,
18,79,19,
18,80,20,
18,81,21,
18,82,21,
18,83,21,
18,84,21,
18,85,21,
18,86,21,
18,87,21,
18,88,22,
18,89,23,
18,90,24,
18,91,24,
18,92,25,
18,93,25,
18,94,25,
18,95,25,
18,96,25,
18,97,25,
18,98,26,
18,99,27,
18,100,27,
18,101,27,
18,102,28,
18,103,28,
18,104,28,
18,105,29,
18,106,29,
18,107,30,
18,108,30,
18,109,30,
18,110,30,
18,111,31,
18,112,31,
18,113,32,
18,114,33,
18,115,33,
18,116,33,
18,117,33,
18,118,34,
18,119,35,
18,120,35,
18,121,35,
18,122,35,
18,123,35,
18,124,36,
18,125,36,
18,126,36,
18,127,36,
18,128,37,
18,129,38,
18,130,38,
18,131,38,
18,132,38,
18,133,38,
18,134,38,
18,135,38,
18,136,38,
18,137,39,
18,138,40,
18,139,41,
18,140,42,
18,141,43,
18,142,43,
18,143,43,
18,144,43,
18,145,44,
18,146,44,
18,147,44,
18,148,44,
18,149,44,
18,150,44,
18,151,44,
18,152,44,
18,153,44,
18,154,45,
18,155,46,
18,156,47,
18,157,48,
18,158,48,
18,159,48,
18,160,48,
18,161,48,
18,162,48,
18,163,49,
18,164,50,
18,165,50,
18,166,51,
18,167,52,
18,168,53,
18,169,54,
18,170,55,
18,171,55,
18,172,56,
18,173,56,
18,174,57,
18,175,57,
18,176,57,
18,177,57,
18,178,58,
18,179,58,
18,180,59,
18,181,59,
18,182,59,
18,183,59,
18,184,59,
18,185,60,
18,186,61,
18,187,62,
18,188,62,
18,189,62,
18,190,62,
18,191,62,
18,192,62,
18,193,63,
18,194,63,
18,195,63,
18,196,63,
18,197,63,
18,198,63,
18,199,64,
18,200,65,

The format is spins,hits.  Each number of hits was tested 16M times.  So we don't have to play for 200/65.

I might have missed some of the subtleties here but the problem to me seems to be that we still have to choose when to clean up our line.

For example, I just got done with a session that was 96/45.  We know that we will get 20 hits but the problem is that we have 104 spins within which to get them!

Why, you might ask, did I not clean up a labby that was so close to 2:1?  Because I was flat betting for 40 of those hits and the line grew and shrank along the way. 

The 2:1 advantage only happens for us if we start raising our bets and we almost always are facing a situation where here is a HUGE number of spins available to us in which to get a small number of hits.

Maybe there could be a strategy where we count loss streaks and if we get to a certain number (say 7 or 8 in a row) we attempt 2 bets to clean up our very low line a bit and then continue on min-flat betting?

This I think ends up more like a pendulum method....
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 03:36:40 AM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav