Play roulette at Royal Panda

Author Topic: Harry's Johnson  (Read 7467 times)

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 164 times
  • Gender: Male
Harry's Johnson
« on: August 09, 2015, 03:29:31 PM »
  NB Harryj username is just a coincidence.

    The Johnson is a form of Labby, and as such developes the ability to cancel 2 loses with 1 win. However this is diluted with a number of flat bets that are made between stake rises.  Only when the line is 'filled" or shortened does the 2 for one come into effect.

    The basic(mildest) form of Johnson  starts with a row of noughts followed by a single one. The number of 0's in the line indicate the number af flat bets before the stake rises. In this form it resembles a strung out Oscar's Grind or Breadwinner. In this form the punter relys on wins on bet one or two for profit and then plays flat 2's until the 0's are filled. Only then will the bet rise to 3u and once again remain flat  until there are no more 1's
      Some professionals have been known to put so many 0's in the line that they never raise their bet. They simply wait for a favourable deviation to clear the line with a 1u profit.

     In the labby article it is suggested that there be 10 0's in the line. ie.  0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 with a total of 11 figures in the line.

Bet 1  W=+1 restart.  L change right hand 0 into 1.   line = 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 shorthand can be 1.9.1
Bet 2  W=+1 restart   L change 2 0's into 1  Line = 1.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 s/h = 3.7.1
Bet 2  L=-1
     The punter here has a choice. he can remove 2 1's from inside of the line leaving  1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 s/h 1.7.1  bet 2
     Or he can take away the 2 end 1's leaving  1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 s/h 1.7.0  bet 1
     In both cases there are now 9 figures in the line and both lines add up to 2. Obviously most punters would pick option 1 Only a 
     real grinder would go for option 2. Which gives the casino the smallest possible part of the B/R to bite on.
          L = -5  line = 1.1.1.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.1  s/h 5.5.1s/h s
 Bet 2 W= -3 once again the punter can remove 2 1's from inside or outside giving lines 1.1.1.1.0.0.0.0.0 s/h 1.5.0
          L = -7  line = 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0.0.0.1 Note wins remove 2 figures from the line loses are added inside the line =11
 Bet 2 L = -9  line = 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0.1 NB there is now only 1...0 if the next bet of 2 loses the r/h 1 becomes 2
 Bet 2 L = - 11 line = 2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 line now totals 12 ie. the 11 we have lost + 1 we started with.
 Bet 3 W = -8  line = 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 after removing the end numbers  9 figures in line.
                       Or    2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1  after removing 3 x 1 from inside. the toatl is the same with only 8 figures.
                       This is a much more agressive tactic. it is obvious that if we keep taking 3 x 1 from the inside
                       The line would rapidly shrink and cancel quicker. The 2 lines move rapidly apart.

 [a] Bet 2 W= -6  line = 1.1.1.1.1.1.1  total 7 with 7 figures.sh 7.1.0
  Bet 3 W= -5  line = 2.1.1.1.1       total 6 with 5 figures. sh 12/41 ie 1x2/ 4x1

 [a] Bet 2 W= -4 line = 1.1.1.1.1 total 5  with 5 figures.  3 wins required to clear the line.
  Bet 3 W= -2 line = 2.1         Total 3 with 2 figures in line  1 win required to clear the line. sh 12/11 ie 1x2/1x1

     In mode [a] the line will rarely require stretching as you are playing more or less om even terms with the bank. The  mode could if a new string of losses occurred instead of the last 2 wins. eg.  line = 2.1.1.1.1
   Bet 3 L = -8 line = 2.2.2.2.1 total 9  sh 42/11 = 4x2+1x1= 9
   Bet 3 L = -11 line =  3.3.2.2.2 total 12  sh 23/32 = 2x3+3x2= 12
   Bet 5 L = -16 line =  4.4.3.3.3 total 17  sh 24/33= 2x4+3x3= 17
   Bet 7 L = -23 line =  5.5.5.5.4 total 24  sh 45/14 = 4x5+1x4= 24.

 The next bet will be 9.  A conservative player who started with a row of 0's might decide that they didn't want the bet to rise over 10u. The line 5.5.5.5.4 could get out of hand with a couple more losses.  We have lost 8 times to 3 wins we can afford to stretch the line. We could go to 8x3 ie 3.3.3.3.3.3.3.3  which would require 4 bets of 6u, or 6x4 ie. 4.4.4.4.4.4  needing 3 bets of 8. Or even 3x4 and 3x3 ie 4.4.4.3.3.3.3 nedding 3bets of 7 and one of 3. In fact any combination that adds up to 24, which is the current loss of 23u + 1u profit.

    In the next post I will look at a starting line of 1's and the possibility of increasing the profit if the line starts to take to long to clear.

         Harry



 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2015, 04:22:23 PM »
Starting like: 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1

 We expect a session to start with some losses and end with a good amount of wins. The initial 0s make it go flat with a disadvantage like:

LWLWLWLWLLLLLLLLLL

You can see that we did not win even a penny when wins=losses(upto first eight spins) in the beginning and later we get struck into labby and at last in a lethal martingale. In a standard labby, we get to win at least in the beginning but not here and end result with HP Johnson is far more worse here than standard labby.

 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 980 times
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2015, 04:33:02 PM »
Is it possible to survive the following:

LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
W
LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
W

What bankroll and table limit would be required?

I think if we can survive the above we then have a foundation to survive most anything.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2015, 04:36:22 PM by Reyth »
 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 164 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2015, 06:28:34 PM »
Starting like: 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1

 We expect a session to start with some losses and end with a good amount of wins. The initial 0s make it go flat with a disadvantage like:

LWLWLWLWLLLLLLLLLL

You can see that we did not win even a penny when wins=losses(upto first eight spins) in the beginning and later we get struck into labby and at last in a lethal martingale. In a standard labby, we get to win at least in the beginning but not here and end result with HP Johnson is far more worse here than standard labby


      the object of the line containing a number of 0's plus a single 1 is to win 1u when the line is clear.

[1]  bet 1 L line = 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1
[2]  bet 2 W line = 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 the 2 ones have been cancelled the result +1 EOS restart.

    This happens 4 times in your line. Therefor before the lossing streak starts we have won 4u.

[9] bet 1 L = 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 sh 21/90= 2
[10] bet 2 L = 1.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 the 2 lost have been added inside the line. sh 41/70
[11] bet 2 L = 1.1.1.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.1  sh 61/50
[12] bet 2 L = 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0.0.0.1  sh 81/30
[13] bet 2 L = 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0.1 sh 101/10 the next bet is 2, but as there is only 1 x 0 the line will change.
[14] bet 2 L = 2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 NB we have lost 2u 1 is used to cancel the last 0. the other converts the first 1 into a 2.
[15] bet 3 L = 2.2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 sh 42/71 = 4x2+7x1= 15= 14lost + 1 in the starting line.
[16] bet 3 L = 2.2.2.2.2.2.2.1.1.1.1 sh 72/41 = 18
[17] bet 3 L = 2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 sh 102/11 = 21
[18] bet 3 L = 3.3.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 sh 23/92 = 24 ie 23 lost + original 1

     Despite 10 losses in a row we have only lost 23u. The next bet is 5 and we only need 6 wins  at this level to cancel the lline. ie
    2 bets of 5, 3 of 4, and 1 of 2. Despite that unusual 10 spin loss, we can recover and show a 5u win in 24 spins.

          Harry
 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 164 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2015, 07:08:22 PM »
Is it possible to survive the following:

LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
W
LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
LLLLL
W

What bankroll and table limit would be required?

I think if we can survive the above we then have a foundation to survive most anything.

    Hi Reyth,
            This can hardly be called a fair challenge 50 losses and only 2 wins ? I sincerely doubt it has ever happened in the history of the game.  I have played it through to the 1st win ie 26 spins. I made one split when the bet reached 25 at bet 20.  At that point the loss was 133u. After the win at bet 26 the loss is 193u.

        The next 26 bets will be pretty complex as the line will have to be split every few spins. Just guessing I would say that it will end up with over 50 figures in the line and require about 30 spins to clear. I can keep the bets down under any limitI, but the losses will pile up quickly from this point. the number of wins required to clear the line will become unrealistic.
       I will work it out when I get more time. It really is a wasted exercise because I doubt whether  even 25/1 is realistic.

      Harry
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 381 times
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2015, 08:14:38 PM »
I smiled Reyth when I saw your example ! WOW !
I suggest that those who bet even-money shots have a look at my misnamed  4 gives 3 page in my site .
This is an A/B situation over 7 spins with the guarantee of at least 5 being correct in one of the seven lines. Using it for playing roulette we  ignore the zero. Zero has a 1 in 37 chance so we have 36 " windows of opportunity ".
The reason for naming it 4 gives 3 is that I think it reasonable to think that the line with the first 4 correct needs only 1 to be correct from the remaining 3 while all the others need at least 2.
When I played this over many months there was only ONE occasion when there was 10 consecutive losers - and that was over more than 5000 spins . More often  than not there was at least 1 in 3 so this may be of interest to progressive bettors.
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1267
  • Thanked: 307 times
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2015, 08:52:40 PM »
Last week I had a W-sequence of 23 odds. Every odd had a profit of 20%. My record is more than 30 W-odds.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 980 times
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2015, 09:03:58 PM »
Ya, well like Kav says, "think outside the box".  I mean look at it differently.

Harry, I think I can put this in a simulator and we can output the worst loss sequences and examine them.  Do you always start with the same numbers?  So, 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1?  I guess for now we can use that and then later experiment with expanding or lessening that starting line?

Is there a specific criteria that we can use to decide when and how to split the ends?  In actual play I am finding that I have quite a few possible choices, such as: 1) Putting the entire number on the left end, 2) Putting the entire number on the right end, 3) Splitting the number in half and placing it equally on both ends, 4) Splitting the number in half and putting on all on the left end, 5) Splitting the number in half and putting it all on the right end, 6) Doing any of the above AS WELL AS splitting existing numbers AND/OR changing their order AND/OR changing their location (L/R) in the line.  Funny, I always find that my instincts know what to choose in each case.

Currently I am using Dobble's inspired method of betting any EC chance (O/E,H/L,R/B) that shows an imbalance of 7 or more out of the last 10 spins; i.e. one of the EC's has 7 appearances or more in the last 10 spins, like say 7 blacks, 3 red and I would bet red.  I don't think Dobble uses this method but I was inspired to use at after I studied his Excel sheets. : )

It appears to do better than random.  The EC analysis software I use is attached.  Here is a video demonstrating it:

http://youtu.be/OZmI1v-5GYs
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 03:12:23 PM by Reyth »
 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 164 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2015, 10:37:56 AM »
   Hi Reyth,
                As I wrote in the 'FLAW" thread I usually start with a row of 1's. The row of 0's is the mildesdest safest way to play.

     Many serious players use 20 to 50 0's in their starting line. they are looking to win 1 chip with the minimum of risk.

     As you have already noticed the lenghth and structure of the line can be altered endlessly. In your 50/2 example I chose to split at when the bet reached 20u. Playing on until the bet reach 50 would have made a big difference in the number of units in the final line.
      It might even have required less B/R.  With your computer skills and ability to handle spreadsheets You could no doubt explore a number of avenues I haven't got around to.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 980 times
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2015, 03:17:22 PM »
Thanks Harry.  My own example of 25:1x2 now intrigues me as to how I would play it.  I should do it soon!

IMPORTANT NOTE: For those that like the idea of tracking EC's and seeing when there is an imbalance in the last 10 spins and tried my software, it was displaying them correctly but erroring when totaling the EC's.  It also failed to count correctly when a zero was present.  I have fixed all that now and this is the software I use when testing the The "Harry J".  Correct version attached. 
 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2015, 03:14:05 AM »
Quote
Is it possible to survive the following:[/size]LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWhat bankroll and table limit would be required?I think if we can survive the above we then have a foundation to survive most anything.[/color]


What do you mean by surviving? You want a net win here or minimum loss?

If it is about minimum loss, flat betting will survive with -48 only
Oscar's Grind will survive too
D'Alembert will survive too.

Many such progressions will do except your HP Johnson of any kind. That will be the highest loser if such cases ever arise.

           
No progression can handle all kind of variance and ultimately win within a reasonable bankroll and table limits.[/size][/font]
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 980 times
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2015, 05:48:46 AM »
Well its just my opinion but I think the goal is to survive and work our way back to profit.  A large part of this may be the bet selection technique.  I think the basic idea is:

bet selection+2:1 advantage with normal wheel flow=survival, recovery & profit.

Sure we get slammed by the rare variance but the 2:1 advantage with our good bet selection gets us back to profit.

This is just my opinion on how I think the flow is supposed to go, but my name ain't Harry Johnson. ; )
 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 164 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2015, 08:21:16 PM »
    Ther are a number of questions that need answers.

   Albal,
          I agree with you entirely. the important thig is to perfect your bet selection. If you have a good method of selecting bets then you will never,( perhaps I should temper that with W.S.Gilbert's "Well hardly ever") run into the horror story that Reyth proposed. You line was more realistic. It would only have needed 5 wins to be back in profit.

  RULE FOR ANY GAMBLE. IF YOU CANT PICK WINNERS NO PROGRESSION WILL SAVE YOU !!

     Reyth,
             Starting with a row of 1's is much more aggresive. I temper it by stopping as soon as I am in profit. This allows you the backing to handle those occasional horror permanences, but keeps you pulling out profit every few spins with normal distribution.

        You can stretch or shrink the line at any time. I usually set a bet size.  However it depends on the situation, what we don't want is for the line to get short enough to make the bet rise steeply. Remember we are only playing for a profit , NOT TO CANCEL THE LINE. With this version we have no need to fear that deadly martingale stage.

     Once again, the progression is not used to keep us in the game , but to generate quick profit ! In real play if I came up against a long string of losses I would simply back off until the bad run was over. This is the most important thing of all.

  IF YOUR LOSSES RUN AWAY FROM YOU, DON'T CHASE THEM !!

              Harry
 

december

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 375
  • Thanked: 39 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2015, 07:33:44 AM »
@ Harry

Wise words!
 

Trilobite

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
  • Thanked: 103 times
Re: Harry's Johnson
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2015, 07:58:25 AM »
No progression can handle all kind of variance and ultimately win within a reasonable bankroll and table limits.

These things that Albalaha write are true, though it probably should be "no unbridled progression".

Progressions are powerful but unruly entities that need to be very well trained to do your bidding. They need to be inextricably attuned to your efforts. A joyful entanglement.

Variance is one condition of the random flow. It is the erratic heart of the beast, but from time to time it does tireā€¦ so please be prepared to hurt it when it does or it will kill you, dead.

Bankrolls should be reasonable, but we must all face the fact that bigger is more reasonable than smaller, and much bigger is more reasonable than both. A formidable bankroll is the bomb!

Table limits are absolutely irrefutable. Finding the best one you can will help in the first instance and then migration to greater limits is desirable, but duck and dive as you like there will eventually be a limit.

That irrefutable limit will be directly governed by your reasonable bankroll, and only ever reached when the beast's heart is really pumping.
 
« Last Edit: August 13, 2015, 08:35:21 AM by Trilobite »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth