• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

The only way to beat roulette is by increasing accuracy of predictions (changing the odds). This is possible on many real wheels.

HP Johnson Modified

Started by huskerdu, Apr 10, 05:52 PM 2014

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

huskerdu

For those who donâ€™t know the HP JOHNSON system, which is a kind of fixed Labby it is  described at the attached file.
It has been also posted at least 3 times here :

The drawback of the system is that  when we have crossed off most of the left & right figures,  the remaining 2 , 3 or 4 figures in the middle have been  risen up too much and at that moment  if  with the next spins we  face an unexpected series of loses,  in order not to use  a very heavy negative progression (which in case of remaining 2 figures will be Marti) weâ€™ll split the remaining figures, so in that way we  rise up the numbers of the requested wins again and again and maybe there will be no end and we will be betting high bets. .
The objective of the modification is to eliminate  that drawback.

The first modification I do is that I  start with a string of 15. So I need 8 wins.
I chose 15 because after 7 wins (cross off 7 + 7 figures) there will be remaining only 1 figure, so the amount wonâ€™t be so high as if it would be remaining 2 figures to close the session if we had an even figures (like 14 of the HP Johnson).

I use  the following string with 3 sectors of 5 figures each. :
LIGHT                                PILLOW                           HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5

Requested wins 8, units to win : 30.
Itâ€™s consisted of 3 sectors : At the right side is the HEAVY sector with theâ€™â€™ basicâ€™â€™ amount of  betting (5 units), at the left side is the LIGHT sector with 1/5 of the amount of the HEAVY Sector, in order to  help to rise up  softly the bets after loses and in the middle sector is the what I call PILLOW, because it will help us in the end to   surpass the problem of the high bets at the last part of betting. Iâ€™ll explain how it works.

The system works like HP JOHNSON system, which means that we bet the sum of the right and the left figure. If we win we cross of the 2 figures.
The second modification I do is  that in case of lose we spread  the amount in the below  way:
We start adding one unit from the right side of the HEAVY sector (from right to left) when we complete it we continue with the left side of the LIGHT sector (from left to right) and when we complete it we continue with the PILLOW from left to right. I write below the succession with which we fill ,  the starting point with the nr.1 continue 2,3,.....until  nr.15.  The objective is always keeping the pillow low.

6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   5   4   3   2   1
â†'   â†'   â†'   â†'   â†'   â†'   â†'   â†'   â†'   â†'   â†   â†   â†   â†   â†

Letâ€™s start with a series of some consecutive loses to see how it works.
LIGHT                                PILLOW                  HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5

First bet is 1+5=6, lose, we add 6 units so the string is now:
LIGHT                              PILLOW                               HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5
2   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   6   6   6   6   6

Bet 2+6=8 lose. We donâ€™t continue adding 8 units where we left at the previous lose, we start again from the right. The string is now:
LIGHT                                 PILLOW                     HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5
2   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   6   6   6   6   6
3   2   2   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   7   7   7   7   7

Bet 7+3=10 lose. Add 10 from the right again.

LIGHT                           PILLOW                             HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5
2   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   6   6   6   6   6
3   2   2   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   7   7   7   7   7
4   3   3   3   3   0   0   0   0   0   8   8   8   8   8

LIGHT                                 PILLOW                      HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5
2   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   6   6   6   6   6
3   2   2   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   7   7   7   7   7
4   3   3   3   3   0   0   0   0   0   8   8   8   8   8
5   4   4   4   4   1   1   0   0   0   9   9   9   9   9

LIGHT                       PILLOW                    HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5
2   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   6   6   6   6   6
3   2   2   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   7   7   7   7   7
4   3   3   3   3   0   0   0   0   0   8   8   8   8   8
5   4   4   4   4   1   1   0   0   0   9   9   9   9   9
6   5   5   5   5   2   2   1   1   0   10   10   10   10   10

Bet 16, lose. Add 16. We start adding from the right side, continue until we complete all the 15 positions and start again from the right side:

LIGHT                              PILLOW                HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5
2   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   6   6   6   6   6
3   2   2   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   7   7   7   7   7
4   3   3   3   3   0   0   0   0   0   8   8   8   8   8
5   4   4   4   4   1   1   0   0   0   9   9   9   9   9
6   5   5   5   5   2   2   1   1   0   10   10   10   10   10
7   6   6   6   6   3   3   2   2   1   11   11   11   11   12

Letâ€™s take a break to see howâ€™s our string after 6 consecutive losses.
Our max bet now is 19 units and look at the pillow how low are the figures. The oblective is keeping the pillow low in order, when we start winning and crossing off the right and left sectors, the remaining sector (PILLOW) to be as much as low.

After 6 lose letâ€™s make a win and cross off the first and last.

LIGHT                            PILLOW                        HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5
2   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   6   6   6   6   6
3   2   2   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   7   7   7   7   7
4   3   3   3   3   0   0   0   0   0   8   8   8   8   8
5   4   4   4   4   1   1   0   0   0   9   9   9   9   9
6   5   5   5   5   2   2   1   1   0   10   10   10   10   10
6   6   6   6   3   3   2   2   1   11   11   11   11

Now bet 6+11=17 and lose. Add 17.

LIGHT                      PILLOW                           HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5
2   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   6   6   6   6   6
3   2   2   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   7   7   7   7   7
4   3   3   3   3   0   0   0   0   0   8   8   8   8   8
5   4   4   4   4   1   1   0   0   0   9   9   9   9   9
6   5   5   5   5   2   2   1   1   0   10   10   10   10   10
6   6   6   6   3   3   2   2   1   11   11   11   11
7   7   7   7   4   4   3   3   2   13   13   13   13

Now itâ€™s time to make 2 wins so we cross off two figures left and two right.

LIGHT                            PILLOW                            HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5
2   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   6   6   6   6   6
3   2   2   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   7   7   7   7   7
4   3   3   3   3   0   0   0   0   0   8   8   8   8   8
5   4   4   4   4   1   1   0   0   0   9   9   9   9   9
6   5   5   5   5   2   2   1   1   0   10   10   10   10   10
6   6   3   3   2   2   1   11   11
7   7   4   4   3   3   2   13   13

Bet 20 and lose. Add 20

LIGHT                          PILLOW                       HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5
2   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   6   6   6   6   6
3   2   2   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   7   7   7   7   7
4   3   3   3   3   0   0   0   0   0   8   8   8   8   8
5   4   4   4   4   1   1   0   0   0   9   9   9   9   9
6   5   5   5   5   2   2   1   1   0   10   10   10   10   10
6   6   3   3   2   2   1   11   11
7   7   4   4   3   3   2   13   13
9   9   6   6   5   5   4   16   16

Letâ€™s take 2 wins now

LIGHT                PILLOW                      HEAVY
1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   5   5   5   5   5
2   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   6   6   6   6   6
3   2   2   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   7   7   7   7   7
4   3   3   3   3   0   0   0   0   0   8   8   8   8   8
5   4   4   4   4   1   1   0   0   0   9   9   9   9   9
6   5   5   5   5   2   2   1   1   0   10   10   10   10   10
6   6   3   3   2   2   1   11   11
7   7   4   4   3   3   2   13   13
9   9   6   6   5   5   4   16   16
6   6   5   5   4

So after 8 loses and 5 wins L-L-L-L-L-L-W-L-W-W-L-W-W , we have the above string left. The PILLOW sectror  has been left.
Now we look at the pillow. We add the units left and they are 26.
Now if you remember we request 8 wins to end the session and 30 units to win. .
The pillow shows us where we are. If the adding numbers of the pillow are less than 30 we have won and no need to continue to hit 8 wins as we have already won 30-26=4 units. We stop session or continue betting 10 units, whatever we want. I always stop when I reach the PILLOW and Iâ€™m +1 unit plus.

huskerdu

Lets see the original HP JOHNSON how would it go with the same loses and wins in the same order.
Instead of   5 5 5 5 5 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 (refering the original units)  Iâ€™ll make them  1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 respectively for correspondence purposes. Wins to end session:7, units to win 50.
With the same order (L-L-L-L-L-L-W-L-W-W-L-W-W):

1   1   1   1   1   9   9   9   9   9   9   9   9   9
1   1   1   1   2   10   10   10   10   10   10   10   10   10
2   2   2   2   10   10   10   11   11   11   11   11   11   11
3   3   3   3   11   11   11   11   12   12   12   12   12   12
4   4   4   4   12   12   12   13   13   13   13   13   13   13
5   5   5   5   14   14   14   14   14   14   14   14   14   14
7   7   7   7   15   15   15   15   15   15   15   15   15   16
7   7   7   15   15   15   15   15   15   15   15   15
8   8   9   17   17   17   17   17   17   17   17   17
8   9   17   17   17   17   17   17   17   17
9   17   17   17   17   17   17   17
12   20   20   20   20   20   21   21
20   20   20   20   20   21
20   20   20   20

With the same order (L-L-L-L-L-L-W-L-W-W-L-W-W) , we see that 2 wins left, weâ€™re losing 30 units and the next bet should be 40 units.
We see that with my modification, with initial betting 6 units after L-L-L-L-L-L-W-L-W-W-L-W-W we have reached to be +4 and if we want to continue our next bet is 10 (less than double of the initial bet).
With the original HP, we are -30 and we have to continue betting 40 units (4 times more than initial bet of 10 units). Or we will split 10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10 and then maybe split again ....and so on.......
I'm keeping testing.

huskerdu

Due to copy - paste from table the headings LIGHT - PILLOW - HEAVY went a little right than normal. For not misunderstanding :

LIGHT
11111

PILLOW
00000

HEAVY
55555

So keep the headings a little more to the left

GLC

What you're doing is very clear.  Maybe a couple of typos but it doesn't make it un-understandable.  I think this is a very unique improvement on HP's idea.  Maybe to the point of making it a playable progression for those of us who have Jell-O for knees when it comes to making large bets.  I think that includes 99% of us.  For the other 1%, go back to watching the football game.

Kudos mate,
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

GLC

I wonder if there's  a relation between the "Pillow" section and Fripper's zeros in the "Beating Roulette With Math" topic.
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

huskerdu

I didn't know Fripper's zeros. I just read the  "Beating Roulette With Math" topic. Very interesting.
Fripper uses zeros at the beginning of betting until all zeros will crossed off.
As I can understand the use of zeros is to eliminate any hard progression if at the first bettings we have a hard series of loses.  So I see it as a kind of a ''defensive identification approach'' at the first steps of our betting when starting our session.
On the other hand, I use the zeros at the last steps of my progression. Where I really want to have as much as possible  low balance left.
Another difference is that he uses classic Labby (add the lost units to the right)  insted of my method using fixed Labby (spreading the lost units inside the string with a 3way route).
Now that Iâ€™m thinking of that,  how about incorporate the one into the other. Lets say, we start with Fripperâ€™s method  and if we have plus we stop, if we have losing streaks when all zeros have crossed off we start the HP Johnson modified ? e.g.
If after some loses we reach to a point of  5 5 5 5 5 we start my progression regarding  those units to the right sector. The difference is that in that case the requested earn is 5 units instead of 30, because the 5X5 =25 units have been already lost at the first step ( Fripperâ€™s) . Just a raw ref;ection  though....

Anyway, I want to emphasize something else :
The objective using a fixed Labby is that we  request  a fixed number of wins.  What is the situation when itâ€™s sure that weâ€™ll have a fixed number of wins ? At what cases we can safely  consider a safe number of wins?
For example, if we play a color, in a string of lets say 20 spins we cannot say that weâ€™ll have 10 wins, or even 5 wins, or even 1 win (we all have seen a string of 18-20 blacks so betting at reds results no wins).  But in 100 spins itâ€™s hard to see lower than 30/70. Or in 200 spins lower than 60/140. So if we use a string of 60 figures (30 wins) for HP modified maybe we are in the good way?  And if our session starts after we have seen a big series of a color and starting with the other? Just a thought.

GLC

The blending of Fripper's use of zeros with your use of zeros may be an improvement to both approaches.

I think a good test for even chance systems is how they fare against the notorious files Bayes sent that have 75 or so wins out of 200 spins.  If you have a system that can survive those 200 bet series, then you have a very good system.  The boogey man is if the wins happen too close to the beginning of the series leaving a higher than 65% to 35% loss to win ratio when the bets are getting rather large toward the end of the 200 spin series.  This may be where your idea can come into play to save the day.

I know there's no way to design a 100% guaranteed way to play 200 spins/bets and come out on top every time.  I'm in the process now of re-arranging the 75 wins and 125 losses in various ways to see how your progression idea can handle it.  I know heavy losses up front followed by heavy wins at the end will win for us.  And a good dispersion throughout can be dealt with with a good bankroll.  It's a question of how much bank will be required when we're cruizin' along at 1 win in every 5 or 6 losses for the last 60 spins of the 200.  Or maybe a run of 15 or so losses in a row in the last 30 or 40 spins.  Neither common, but both possible!
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

beretta28

HP Johnson modified you have illustrated is an improvement for sure.
But in my opinion is not enough, if you have a very negative session.
If you find out a HP Johnson that resists to a 65/135 decisions(the max and not very likely difference between two chances in 200 spins),you'll invent the holy grail.
Personally I didn't succeed and I gave up this progressions/strategy.
May be I'm wrong.

I consider that roulette can't be beaten only in short term(few spins,that is not exactly hit and run method)
All systems that play mechanically and bet for instance 200/300 or more spins per session will fail(apart from the comment above).
"Short term" means to extract from a given permanence a string of x spins,that,according to a given theory,are not completely random and then bet y spins in order to have a very probable win,with a smooth progression and high value unit.
x and y(related to an imbalance ,as I have already illustrated here) are not easy to found,but IMHO it's the only way for the player to try to beat roulette quite constantly.

GLC

Huskerdu's tweak is an improvement.  I think the next step to guard against really bad streaks is to add back positions that have been eliminated by wins.

Like this:  Cross off each end on a win but if you have say 3 losses in a row, we add back a position on each end.  So if our win left us with only 7 positions to bet and we had 3 losses in a row, we would add back 2 positions giving us 9 and we could redistribute the units to drop our bet size.  This is just an idea.  The number of losses required before adding back doesn't have to be 3, it could be 2 or 4.  Whatever makes the most sense.  This would take some of the pressure off the bets rising too much.  When we're having a really bad run, all we're trying to do is survive until the tide turns our way.
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

beretta28

I made some tests.I found this sequence:
WWLWWLLLLLLLLWLLLWLLLLWWWLL
I tried to use ten terms per section,instead of five
I tried also to decrease them: light(ten times 1),pillow(ten times 0),heavy(ten times 2)
A disaster...
In other word, also this approach shows that it impossible to fight against a high deviation of L

ugly bob

Quote from: beretta28 on Apr 13, 03:31 AM 2014

WWLWWLLLLLLLLWLLLWLLLLWWWLL

The 'basic' target betting approach took care of this string.

Basic rules are bet 1. If you win and are in profit = reset.
If on a win and not in profit....add up losses and bet what is needed to take you to +1. If you lose here....freeze the bet and wait for the next win. Again, add up losses and bet what is needed to take you to +1.
So in effect WW will take you to a new high and then reset.

W +1.
W +2.
L +1.
W +2.
W +3.
L +2.
L +1.
L +0.
L -1.
L -2.
L -3.
L -4.
L -5.
W -4. You are looking to get to +4 which will take you to new high. You need to bet 8 units next.
L -12. Freeze the bet here at 8 units because you lost.
L -20.
L -28.
W -20. You are still looking to get to +4 which would be a new high. Bet 24 units next.
L -44.
L -68.
L -92.
L -116.
W -92. Still looking to get to +4. Bet 96 units next.
W +4. You reached a new high even after a rotten string of 8W vs 16L. Reset back to 1 unit.

It takes money and balls to play like this.....but you can be creative and use this type of betting for anything (sports etc..)

Oh and if anybody thinks that they could never afford to play like this.....add up all the losses over the last 15-20 years and you would have very likely had a bankroll that would still be in tact and grown considerably.

huskerdu

Beretta28 we have a different approach using the system.
My objective is not aleays to end a session whatever balance I have during the session but to be at a session plus  +1. If it's at the start end session and start new session. If at the middle the same end session.
When I have a WIN at the first spin I end session and I restart. I don't continue crossing off ....

So at your string of wins and loses,  the first 2 W at the begining makes no sense, because at the first W you're +3. Stop, not crossing off anything, start again a new session.
The same with the second win.
It's the same when we have at the beginning a L-W. Playing for e.g. your string with 1 - 0 and 2 at the sectors, when with my first L I'm +3 with the next WIN I'm +4 so, total +1 end of session. Start new session.
What you did with the WWLWW at the beginning was to cross off  4+4=8 figures without being nessesary because you had been already plus.
And when the string of LLLLLLLL started you had only 22 figures insted of 30!!!! which was a  dissadvantage. So if those 4 first wins in your string of 9 wins and 18 loses were spread in some ways after the LLLLLLLL there wouldn't have been such a disaster (not that there might be such a kind of W and L spreaded at the string that will make a real disaster.
And GLC's proposal was a right step to cope with it.
The system I explain is been used to cope with a string of loses at the beginning. If we have W or LW at the first spins we're plus end of session.
Anyway, I don't want to emphasize that my system is good, all systems have cons and every different string of W-L has different aoutcomes to different systems.
I can understand that a system has to be flexible and we all working on this and trying with some ideas to come to better ways of playing.

huskerdu

The classic problem with fixed Labbys like HP Johnson is that if you come to the end and your string has been really heavy, you have to do something like GLC's proposal. At any way cannot leave the figures just like that, you have to split them do something with them.
My idea was just a modification of HP Johnson to a better way, not a solution to the problem.
I think ideas from here and there help us to make some combinations between systems, to make every time a better  blend and help us to improve the way of playing.
And I think that you cannot fight the beast using only one system that stands alone. A combination of systems seems to me more effective (a blend of negative and positive progression, or in  the case of this post, e.g.  starting with Fripper's zeros continue with HP Johnson modified, ending with classic Labby ....)

beretta28

huskerdu
Your improvement of HP Johnson method is the best I read sofar.
Apart from GLC's suggestion,what do you think about ten terms per section and 0,1,2(instead of 5).
I used to play with an additional tweak:to fix a cap to the bet.
For instance 20/30 or 50 units at the most...
Where I can find Fripper's Zero tweak?
Does it put 5 or 10 Zeros, at the left of your string?

huskerdu

beretta28
Thanks for your participation in  this topic /  common effort .
Actually I didnâ€™t know either Fripper's zeros.
GLC mentioned it at this topic and I did a search. Here you are:

Very interesting approach. Starting with zeros at the left.

For sure your idea of 3 sections of ten 1 â€" ten 0 â€" and ten 2 instead of 1-0-5  is really good, safe and less B/R needed.
The only fact to be considered is that the more big is the variation between the LIGHT and HEAVY sectorsâ€™ numbers  the less hard is your progression.
To explain you.
Lets consider we have 7 consecutive  loses at the beginning.
Using  1-0-5 sectors you start betting 1+5 = 6 units and at the 7th lose your  bet was 12 units, means the double of the initial bet.
Using 1-0-2 you start with betting 3 units and at the 7th lose your bet was 9 units, means 3 times more than initial bet!!! So the progression gets high harder.
I think thatâ€™s why HP Johnson used 5 5 5 5 5 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45. The left sector with the 5s  was the 1/9 of the value of the  right 45s!!!!!  in order to have a slow progression.
So using 1-0-9 sectors, after 7 loses starting with initial bet of 10 units, you have bet at your 7th lose 16 units !!! (only the 1,6 of the initial bet!!!)
Itâ€™s a kind of â€˜â€™what to choose?â€™â€™  The decision is hard to say. Chose 1-0-2 because I donâ€™t want to expose big B/R but the progression will get high more quickly, or 1-0-5 or 1-0-9 using bigger B/R and the progression will be softer?
PS
Try to test your 9W/18L string with 1-0-5 or 1-0-9 sectors, but as I said at my previous topic the first pocket WWLWW take it after the LLLLLLLL wherever you want. You can also start with GLCs mentioned Frippers' zeros and at the end if you feel with your back on the wall, try GLC's proposal  to add back a position on each end and redistribute the units to drop our bet size.
The results will be different
What Iâ€™m doing those days is the above tests mixing all the above trying to find out the best way to play it
Regards

-