Author Topic: Johnson progression  (Read 43767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lazarous

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2010, 09:23:23 PM »
OK I'll try to post both. "Group of seven" I like a lot, very resistant, huge bankroll and quite easy for me to explain, with my very poor English. Bread Winner lower bankroll, the most resistant "up when you lose progression", but quite difficult for me to explain.It will be a way to improve my English!
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2010, 12:58:23 AM »
Hi Lazarous,

Thanks for the compliment. That the Johnson system is a losing one in the long end probably doesn't surprise anybody  :(

The newbielink:http://www.roulette30.com/2010/06/labouchere-progression-in-depth.html [nonactive] posted on the main newbielink:http://www.roulette30.com [nonactive] site is great.

The problem with a Labby is, that you do not have a stop/loss limit, whichever stop/loss you take, you will lose in the long run (i could show you the math, but I guess everybody will accept this statement without further proof), so the only way is to find a Labby that survives every streak of losses possible.

Allthough actually want I am going to say here now should belong in my thread "Is beating the game of roulette with math really that impossible??" try the labby with this scheme:

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

64 zero's and a one
,

Bet on an even chance (Ror B, H or L, O orE) or even better play according trends, BUT use a way that the odds of a win to loss are 75/25, and replace by every loss the zero numbers at the end as cheap as possible, so if you lose 3u replace 3 zero's by 1. The number of 65 figures doesn't come ou of the blue, but I guess you will figure it out why it is 65, progress the Labby till the end, I am curious if you what kind of conclusion you will draw with this line of playing. One thing to be sure of, check how many units will hit the table limit, do you think you will ever hit them this way?

regards,
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

lazarous

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2010, 08:01:26 PM »
Interesting, because very close to a flat bet!I try, but I'm afraid that, even in this original and clever way, if you have a deviation ("ecart") 3,5 or more (Marigny ratio) you reach the table limit. I must confess that, in any case is more resistant than Labby or Johnson. The real enemy of players is zero (and double zero, in Europe almost unknown) in the long term, but in the short term is the deviation (ecart). Any system doesn't resist to Marigny ratio above 3.5/4. Sorry to be a bit "teacher": Marigny ratio is, for Red and Black for instance, Red minus Black (or vice versa, it must be a positive number) divided by the square root of total, Black plus Red. EXAMPLE: 36 decisions, 24 Black,12 Red, Marigny ratio is 2. Never seen in the story of roulette more than 5,5. But 3,5 or even less, it depends on the progression, is the end for the player, and is very frequent. I test all progressions with Marigny ratio 4 (rare,but quite possible). Above I have seen one time in my 35 years life of gambler 4.8, never more. Try and if you have a progression, apart flat bet, that resist to 4, THIS is the good method!!
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2010, 09:38:14 PM »
Look closer!

It beats the ratio 2/3 in R/B or any even change for 200 spins without reaching table limit. In RNG 20 million of spins there was not one session of 200 with a larger SD.

Or I must have a huge mistake in my calcs,
 

doc

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2010, 07:41:49 PM »
Greetings:
Belgian reminded me of an important point when playing Labby. The strength comes from the 2/3 R/B ratios. One wins cancels 2 losses. That has always been the strong appeal of Labby. At least for me.
When you start out with a line that is 20 numbers long you have put yourself in the hole by 10 bets! The 2/3 ratio is gone.
However, you could start out by simply flat betting 1 unit. When you lose, write the 1 down as the begging of your line. If you start off winning right away, then simply collect the winnings. You could even move into a Paroli or any up as you win progression for when you are ahead of the game on the plus side of things.
Anyway, back to your Labby. After the second loss your line reads 11. At this point you can start playing your Labby progression. The 11 line represents true losses so the 2/3 ratio is preserved. You can also wait to start the Labby and continue to flat bet 1 unit until the line is at a predetermined length. For example, 1111 or 11111 with the extra 1 being a unit of profit so that the line does not become merely a debt recovery system.
So, you choose the length of the line you are going to start with and choose the amount of profit that you will gain when the line is completed.
On the matter of spreading out the losses or the size of the line after the losses; I think you are onto the right idea when you suggested limiting the largest number to 20 units. There needs to be some experimentation to find the optimum number for the optimum line length. I have a feeling that 5 or 10 might workout better then 20.
So, lets say you chose the number 5. When the line gets to 55555 or -25 units, it now becomes time to increase the length. Maybe to 33333333 equals 3X8 =24. Pocket the extra unit as "takeout".
The 0 bet sounds like a good idea. I use it all the time but more so in my bet selection then money management. (I realize that sounds a bit strange.) If I am betting “before last” (Avant Dernier) on RB for example. The results come up RR (start betting here on R) RRBB (WWLL) after the second loss I would go to a 0 bet until I won 2 out of 3 decisions. Then, I would pick up my progression again. This way a long string of losses does not knock me out of the game. (Of course it goes without saying that a long string of something else will. It’s a trade off.)
Just a few ideas to throw around. I hope it helps.
Doc
 

Hann

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2010, 08:59:30 PM »
Appreciate your post, Doc. Not everyone can explain their ideas in black in white.  :) . Its great (your explanation) that you can chose when to flat bet and when to start a progression based on the table trends, patterns, etc.
Also, a predetermined "ceiling" for bets placed is wise. Of course, the smaller the better, IMO.

The downside, as with any cancellation system, is the amount of wins you need to recoup keeps increasing.

It all looks interesting though.

 

Mocco

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2010, 04:11:47 AM »
Don't know if I am stating the bleeding obvious but with any use of the labby - the number you start the string with will be the number of units you are trying to win. So if you start with a string of 64 zeros and a one, you are attempting to win one unit.

The thing I like about the Johnson method is that the string is limited to 20, and any ten wins completes it. Tried it with my labby spins from hell and it got to the 8's and 9's but then recovered - very scary but it recovered. So for me the quest continues!!

Must admit I am enjoying this thread as the labby is my mm method of choice.

Regards
 

ucdrummer00

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2010, 04:13:53 AM »
Belgian,

If you're going for 65 wins in 200 trials, why do you have 64 0's and a 1?

With the traditional labby, you cross off 2 numbers after each win and add one after a loss. I know in this version we are not adding any numbers since the length of the string is limited to 65 numbers, so wouldn't you just cross off one number after a win?

Thanks again for sharing your ideas.

drummer
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2010, 04:18:31 AM »
Hi drummer,

Welcome aboard!

Hann u r right, we JUST want to win one unit. That is my goal, be able to win 1 unit, 100% sure, everyday, year after year. That doesn't imply you cannot win more, but the idea is that every goal of 1 unit can last for at most 200 spins maximum. Off course it can take also just 1 spin.

I only want to head in this direction: analyze the most bad probability of an even chance: you will find never less then 65/135 in 200 spins, so find a progression that survives the bad ecards within shorter periods of these 200 spins, and you will be sure that you will reach your target after maximal 200 spins.

As you see 65/135 is near 1W : 2L, so therefore the Labby is a very suitable progression for the research. UK showed an analysis of 20 million spins divided in 200 spin sessions. It shows that the largest encountered negative peak is 62.5 (maximal difference between R and B)in 200 spins.
That is already better then the 70 proposed by me (135-65=70) but it is always nice to know that with the Labby you may be able to handle worse runs then the most negative expectation present.

Now the most important issue is off course to handle the bets during the bad ecarts within the table limit. This is the crucial part, because playing the Labby, you can ONLY win, if you play it till the end, YOU WILL ALWAYS LOSE in the long run when you start applying stop/loss limits.

Actually the string of the zero's and the 1 should be replaced by 134 zero's and a 1 because this is the 1:2 after 200 spins which will for sure ends the run as stated above. But I am afraid at this point many will probably draw the conclusion that I am ready for the psychiatric hospital Laughing

The most important reason in the Labby for the fast rising of the figures, dangering to cross table limits, are long losing streaks when the stakes (most times the last 1 or 2 bets remaining from the string) become high.

Replacing the zero's in the string is part of the solution but it is not enough, when there are no zero's left anymore the same bad losing streak can occur at that very moment.

So we have to find away to get rid of these long losing streaks, or at least make them last as short as possible according to the probability. How can we do that?

Answer: by changing the odds of 50:50 into 75:25 or even 87:13.

How can we do that?
Answer: to combine 2 or 3 chances in one figure!

75:25: RB RB BB RR
87:13: RRR RRB RBB BBB BRR BBR BRB RBR

So play 2 decisions (pairs)(75:25) and treat them as one for the Labby but replace by a lost 2 zero's because that is only 1 bet (1:2)

I played this way with imaginary zero's starting with 0,1 the Hamburger Permanense (25-10-1999, Table 1) from spin 37 till spin 237 on R (RB or BR or RR), because in this session of 200 spins there are 69 Reds and 131 Blacks. Worse I could not find over the year 1999, and playing this session I won 17 units. Maximum bet was 304 units.

Regards,

Belgian
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 10:23:57 PM by Belgian »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

RouletteRaider

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2010, 08:51:06 AM »
Belgian,

I am in work so I only quickly read your post, but from what I can gather it has something to do with expecting a certain amount of wins in 200 spins.

I was working on the exact same type of theory last night. I think I might be onto something, but can't quite perfect the method.

What I was basing my method on is that it is 'impossible' (I know it IS possible, but so unlikely I would have thought it virtually impossible) for a color to show LESS than 50 times in 200 spins.

Would everyone else agree this is 'impossible'?
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2010, 09:02:56 AM »
RouletteRaider,

It is indeed impossible to get 50/150. As found by UK in 20 million of RNG spins the worst he found was 69/131.

It is the same as encountering a streak of 50 reds, it can always happen according math, but if one has to take these kind of happenings in consideration we better stop analyzing the game.

Belgian
« Last Edit: December 19, 2010, 09:06:42 AM by Belgian »
 

doc

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2010, 09:12:00 AM »
Hi Belgian:
I just came back from your thread. This is getting better and better.
I am not following how you are proposing to change the odds to 75:25 by betting pairs. Could you please give a simple example using any line without the zeros? Ex. 1111 or 1234.
You also stated,
“So we have to find away to get rid of these long losing streaks, or at least make them last as short as possible according to the probability. How can we do that?”

Can we use some version of the old Baccarat standby; "Stop betting on Red after 3 losses and start again after 2 wins". UK ran numerous trials of 200 spins. Can he tell us how the average number of one-color streaks deviated for trials where one color was heavily favored?
For example, I am wondering if the color Red came out 130 times in a trial of 200, then would there be more triples, quads, etc. It would then make sense, to stop betting against Red after it appears X number of times.
The next problem would be, how many events have to occur before we pick up Black again? After it appears once? Two in a row? If there are more streaks of Red does that necessarily imply that there will be an increase in the number of single Black events. I would think so.
I don't know if it is possible to draw these kinds of conclusions from Roulette.
My background is mostly in Baccarat and I am concerned that my thinking is still leaning toward deck composition and the effect that this has on the remaining decisions in a shoe.
Sorry if I am pulling the thread off target.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2010, 09:13:31 AM by kav »
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2010, 09:15:32 AM »
Hi Doc,

I start with 0,1 and imaginary zero's. Say we play on R and pairs 75:25

We put 1 unit on R (0+1) we lose, now we put 2 units on R (first pair), we lose again, now the Labby becomes 0,1,1,2 (replace 2 zero's by the lost units. Any win in a pair is followed by crossing out 2 numbers in the Labby. If I win the first bet in the pair I don't play the second bet, I wait it out.

This way I am testing right now. I use 9 imaginary zero's. If you want to take even more less risk you can for example split the lost bets in 3 figures, then you will need off course 2W against 3 losses to end the session. Also you can use more imaginary zero's to reduce your bets.

The aggressive version I am testing for the moment seems to work already within table limits (till now I only reached half of the table limit with the 304 unit bet as the max bet placed in the 69/131 session).

the 75:25 odds is your security against long losing streaks, off course you will still encounter losing streaks of 4,5 now and then, even rarely 6,7 or 8, but opposed of them you have also winning streaks 12-30 pairs long.
so the risk for long losing streaks is badly reduced.

regards,
Belgian
 

Belgian

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2010, 09:24:08 AM »
Hi all,

Thanks everybody for the input and data.

I checked the bad streaks given by MuckAnarajayClub and they perform well within the limits sofar: i checked the permanences for the bad streaks from Red (22), Black (20) and Low (28). The highest bet with Low (28) was 208 units and max needed bankroll 890 units. Recovery after the streak was within 30 spins to reach 1 unit win end of session. This was using the "aggressive" progression explained before.

Although the results are excellent so far, i am sure that a bad run (for example short ecards of 40/3) can be found somewhere which will beat this aggressive approach. As I told before it is easy to fight this possibility with another far less aggressive progression, but that will mean also that all the runs will last a lot longer before end of session will be reached.

That means that one has to be satisfied with something like 1 unit profit averaging each 30 spins, and although it means that beating the game has been solved, that in practice the winnings are low. Off course one can play 100 Euro or dollar per unit, but that means that the needed bankroll would be someting like 50.000 Euro, and that isn't possible for all of us (not for me at the moment anyway).

A better alternative I think would be extending the figures in the labby after reaching bets higher then 18 units by2 or even 4 for short term until the ecard becomes a little better, this way I think (but have to test)the issue can be solved.

Belgian
 

OPT

  • Guest
Re: Johnson progression
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2010, 09:25:59 AM »
Hi Belgian,

0000000001
betting with pairs

I still do not understand how you play, can you run through this sample:

R
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
R
B
R
R
B

Thanks.
OPT