### Author Topic: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.  (Read 16027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### weird

• New
• Posts: 109
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« on: July 26, 2015, 05:12:36 AM »
Gentlemen,
The Johnson progression, is very good,
till it hit the long streaks of losses,
or with just a few smack of wins,
in between the streaks of losses,
where the progression losses will snowball.

and the other is when at the very few last spins,
the dreaded marthy kicks in.

A few among of us had realized this,
but choose to keep quite.

As I see it the way to avoid marthy,
is to bet with Johnson, for EC,

but use the strategy to bet single Dozen.

And the other flaw, I choose to keep quiet first.

Let see if any among us will divulge, how to rectify the flaw?

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4306
• Thanked: 1544 times
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2015, 05:42:33 AM »
As I am sure you already know, I am a bit slow and thick-headed, what do you mean by "marthy"?  Does this mean Martingale used at the end to recover large losses more quickly?

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2178
• Thanked: 1131 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2015, 09:12:28 AM »
I think the Johnson is an amazing progression.
With any betting system you can hit long steaks of losses.
IMO Johnson is one of the more effective ways to deal with them.

#### weird

• New
• Posts: 109
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2015, 10:05:54 AM »
Getlemen,
Marthy =Martingale nickname.

As u see,
say,
[000-001]=win 1, in three hit.

L[000-001]=-1
L[000-011]=-2
L[000-111]=-3
w[001-111]=+1=-2
L[01-11]=-1=-3
L[11-11]=-2=-5
L[11-22]=-3=-8
w[22-23]=+5=-3
L[2-2]=-4=-7
L[44]=-8=-15
L[8-8]=-16=-31
L[16-16]=-32=-63
L[32-32]=-64=-127
L[64-64]=-128=-255
w=[128-128]=256=+1

see how dangerous the marthy
when/if ,
kicks in at the final few spins?

=========================
As I see it the way to avoid marthy,
is to bet with Johnson, for EC,
but use the strategy to bet single Dozen.

L[000-001]=-1
L[000-011]=-2
L[000-111]=-3
w[001-111]=+2=-1
L[01-11]=-1=-2
L[11-11]=-2=-4
L[11-22]=-3=-7
w[22-23]=+10=+3

==================

L[000-001]=-1
L[000-011]=-2
L [000-111] =-3
L  [001-111]=-4
L   [011-111]=-5
L [111-111]=-2=-7
L  [111-122]=-3=-10
L  [122-222]=-3=-13
L [222-233]=-5=-18
L[333-334]==-7=-25
L[444-455]=-9=-34
L[566-666]=-11=-45
W=[778-888]=+30=-15
L[78-88]=-15=-30
L [11-11-12-12]=-23=-53
L[16-17-18-18]=-34=-87
W[24-25-27-27=+

Betting Dozen, with HP Johnson meant for EC, have better chance, I think.

as I in haste, the calculation, may wrong somewhere,
thanks/

#### albalaha

• New
• Posts: 122
• Thanked: 27 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2015, 05:40:23 AM »
HP Johnson has nothing that makes it outstanding. Since you can not guess the flow of Wins and Losses, it could always end up in a deadly martingale.
I have got this coded in vba from a programmer of USA. With all the tweaks possible, it is still a "not so playable" thing.
It is a combo of flat betting(when there are 0s left in the progression line), standard labouchere(when zeros are gone and some other numbers are left in the progression line) and atlast Martingale (when there are only two figures left in the line and losses start to roll their).
In some of the cases where this scheme of thing comes where we get lots of losses to begin and nice amounts of wins later, it works well. If wins and losses come in weird manner, it looks as much foolish as martingale can.
Indeed, it is a weird way to play labouchere and nothing else. A sensible person would prefer to play oscar's grind than this.

#### weird

• New
• Posts: 109
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2015, 06:07:14 AM »
Hi Albalaha,
With respect,
U are absolutely right,

What about applying that HP.Johnson, meant to bet EC,
but use to bet Dozen.

Any ideas?

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4306
• Thanked: 1544 times
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2015, 07:23:17 AM »
A dozen has a max expected loss streak of 41 whereas EC's have 25.  So your variance will increase by betting a dozen but you make an excellent point because your payout doubles whereas the max loss streak does not.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2015, 08:51:01 AM by Reyth »

#### dobbelsteen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1560
• Thanked: 544 times
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2015, 09:08:27 AM »
From mathematical point of view there is no maximum expected loss streak. You are right that a 25 EC streak has about the same features of a 41 dozen streak.

I still do not understand the Johnson Progression and the advantage with respect other progressive betting plans.

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2178
• Thanked: 1131 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2015, 09:53:46 AM »
Guys,
There are spin sequences that would favor Johnson and there are spin sequences that would favor Oscar's grin or any other progression.
There is no "better" or "worse". It all depends on the specific spin sequence.
I can give you spin sequences in which Johnson would perform better than any other progression you give me.
That's why I keep saying "understand each system's strengths and weaknesses". All systems have them. There is no "one size fits all".

IMO Johnson is a very resilient system.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2015, 10:00:28 AM by kav »

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2487
• Thanked: 545 times
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2015, 11:21:21 AM »
ALL progressions are subject to long losing streaks and destruction  which is why they should be kept as short as possible enabling quicker recovery with future bets.. So kav is right here. You need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of your method.

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4306
• Thanked: 1544 times
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2015, 01:15:10 PM »
From mathematical point of view there is no maximum expected loss streak.

I am speaking from a practical point of view rather than the use of formulas.  Statisticians prove their theories by experiment.  Yes in Monte Carlo the EC went 27 times but there is a reason why there is a specific date attached to that event.  It is because you can spin the wheel 3 quadrillion times and never see a result that is more than 25 max loss spins.  Is it theoretically (mathematically) possible to see it?  Of course.  Practically speaking, you can go your whole life and never see it and should expect for that to be the case in a fair game.  I think we agree on this though because you have a clever way of speaking. ; )

Quote
You are right that a 25 EC streak has about the same features of a 41 dozen streak.

What are these features specifically?  The reason I ask is because I do not actually know if the relation between a 2-1 payout vs a 1-1 payout AND a 25 loss streak vs. a 41 loss streak conveys any statistical advantage.

You have found they are about equal?  I am pretty sure that this is what weird is trying to prove as well...
« Last Edit: July 27, 2015, 01:24:58 PM by Reyth »

#### Harryj

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 359
• Thanked: 174 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2015, 09:57:21 PM »
I agree with Kav. the Johnson is very versatile.

The big problem is recording. I dveloped a shorthand method that works very well. I start with 14 X 1
14 x 1 bet 2 x 1 L write 2 X 2 / 12 x 1 shorthand = 22/121 ie 2 x 2 + 12 x 1
22/121  bet 2+1 L add 3 lost to 22 = 52(5 x 2) deduct 3 from 121(now 9 x 1)= 52/91
52/91  bet  2+1 W  deduct 3 from 52 = 22/91 ie 2x2 + 9x1= 4 +9= 13 deduct origional 14 = 1 profit EOS restart.
If lost add 3 to 5 =82. deduct 3 from 9= 61 ie 82/61 = (8x2) + (6x1)= 16+6=22. If we deduct the origional line= 22-14=8= total loss.
82/61 bet =3 L add 3 to 8, deduct 3 from 61= 11x2+ 3x1 total loss = 22+3-14= 11
112/31 bet 3 W deduct 3 from 3=0 = 112/0= 11x2=22 -14 = 8 = loss
112 bet  4(2x2) L= 112/22 ie 22+4 = 26 -14= 12 loss
112/22 bet 4 W take 4 from 2x2= 112/0= 22 = 8 loss
112 bet 4 W deduct 2x2 from 11x2= 9x2=18 =4 loss
92 bet 4 L= 92/22 = 18+4= 22 NB the wins shorten the line, we have gone from 26 to 18 and back to 22. The line has gone from
11x2+2x2=26 to 11x2=22 to 9x2=18 to 9x2+2x2= 22
92/22 bet 4 W = 9x2=18. We could have taken the 2x2 from 9x2 but we don't want to shorten the line too quickly.
92  bet 4 (2x2)W =7x2-14= 0 we have cleared the line with 6 losses and 5 wins. EOS

The idea is to keep the line as long as possible. to avoid that dreaded MARTY. Also to restart as soon as in profit or breaking even.  A win on the first or the second bet puts you in profit. once the line starts you will always stay slightly ahead of the W/L equation.

Shortening the line quickly offers a bigger profit potential, but I prefer to play it safe and avoid that Marty. If the Marty does catch up with you just lengthen it by splitting the numbers into 2.

Remember the sum of the top and bottom numbers must be equal to the loss plus 14(or however many 1's you start with). Also  52/91 isn't 52 divided by 91, but (5x2) + (9x1).

If you like the Johnson this makes it very much easier to play.

Harry

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2178
• Thanked: 1131 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2015, 10:02:44 PM »
Nice post Harry. Thanks

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4306
• Thanked: 1544 times
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2015, 10:05:35 PM »

I guess its just too late to make a "Harry Jay Johnson Progression PROPS" thread... XD

#### Harryj

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 359
• Thanked: 174 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Johnson Progression. The Flaw.
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2015, 10:27:01 PM »
Hi Reyth,
I don't suppose it really matters if you start a new thread or use this one. Apart from Kav all the other posts have been pretty negative. I'd like to see some positive results because I think the whole idea has great potential.

Regards,
Harry