OMG. Again HP Johnson?  I told you that if the last win took bad turn it is the worst martingale you might have ever seen. Basic 01 labouchere is better. This being my last comment on this progression. If you can't comprehend that hp Johnson is foolish way,  I can't help it anymore.

HP Johnson worst side is trying to fix number of wins without having any estimate of its span. Classic labouchere gets bigger in certain number of losses and wins back in a bit more than half of that only. Labby is mathematical while Johnny is foolish. If you want to safeguard bets from getting big in first few losses, start a 01 labby. So LLLLLLL WILL LOOK LIKE 011111111 only.

HP Johnson is foolish labby how many times you need to be told. It seems you only read things and never simulate or play for real, so it looked  very bright to you.
Take a case of an hp Johnson looking for 7 wins so 13 zeros and 1. 7 wins came in 20 spins only, this way
LWLWLWLWLLWLLWLLLLLW.
DESPITE a great starting wins it earned nothing till the last painful win. You better forget this silly progression. Labouchere is great by itself and if u r ready to risk upto 5000 chips, you are winning even 69/200 with the basic labouchere.

Quote
dozen 5wins =10/23spins=43.47%.
thus over the 33.34% needed.

I did not get this part. How 5 wins of a dozen with so many losses look 43.47% to you? Please illustrate your dozen labby and let us see if it is so useful.

And how do u propose to use labby for a single dozen? Please showcase for this W/L of a dozen:
LLLLWLLLLWLLLWLLLLLLLWW

Don't try to win the worst itself but get flat there and win something thereafter when storm has passed.

Wong,
It is not regarding minimum number of hits but the way they hit that helps hp Johnson or makes that a bad joke. HP Johnson  could harass you even in 75/200 case. It seems you are not getting this. If the last few wins come a bit late, it would kill you. If you get a session where initial wins come late and later it showers wins, hp Johnson will do great. There are many progressions on the same premise. You can do one thing to understand it better. Play hp Johnson on  papers on my given horror sessions of worst 100s. As they are not worst 200 your favourite hp Johnson should handle all.

I found the worst 69/200 case of red. It has 33 reds in the first 100 spins.

@Wong,
          HP johnson is wrong type of labouchere. It tries to pre fix a win string that is a blunder. HP Johnson is nothing else but a mix of flat betting in the beginning, labouchere in the middle when all zeros filled up and at last a deadly martingale. If you see #3 case or the worst hit of 69/200, a simple labouchere will itself win a net profit.
                          My point is, labouchere is very powerful and underestimated progression. It has the capacity of concluding a session within 200 spins if we consider 69/200 the worst or a little ahead with limited chips.

Wong, can you point out the exact source of original 69/200 of the EC or upload the same excel here?

Anything can win with unlimited bets. Martingale and labouchere will beat all sessions in the long run but they might need chips and table limit beyond the reach of a player. I evaluated and even got coded the HP johnson, it fails to win in many cases.

chasing something for winning just 1 unit risking thousands is not wise. Waiting for a number to not hit for 300 spins could take 100 of thousands of spins. Secondly, to target 1 unit win betting upto 255 spins from a single number will need thousands of chips. Are you ready to undertake such chances? Do not forget our assumed virtual limits are hard to reach and not impossible.

Quote from: PatternAnalys on August 31, 2019, 01:45:15 PM

Do you have worst single dozen in 100spins?

I scanned through Zumma American roulette and found 19/100 case of dozen1 as the worst in that. Although 15,000 spins are not big enough. See:

3
3
2
2
2
3
3
0
2
3
2
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
0
3
1
2
0
2
1
2
3
2
0
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
0
3
3
2
2
0
3
1
0
3
3
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
0
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
3
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
2
1
2
3
2
1
3
2
3
1
3
1
3
2
2
2
0
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
0
2
3
2
3
1
2
0
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
0
2
0
3
1
1
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
0
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
0
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
3
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
0
3
1
2
1
3
3
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
3
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
0
3
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
2
2
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
2
1
3
3
1
0
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
0
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
0
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
0
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
2
1
2
0
2
0
3
1
3
1
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
0
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
1

QuoteIf worst dz/100 never less than 15...then we could build a near hg  delay-progression around it.

and how will you do that?

Quote from: PatternAnalys on August 28, 2019, 09:49:31 AM
May you please show us....the FTL  baccarat with only 30hit/100hands.

thanks.

Yes. It is 31/100 as the worst starting in 100665 hands. See
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
[/size]

@Adulay,

                Nevermind Captain. Actually, no way to select bet is better than other, we have to agree to it. Simulations prove the same. If we create a trigger like LLL in an EC, we need to wait averagely 8 spins to get one opportunity to bet. We do not change or step out of probabilities by doing anything. If we make one bet after every LLL, we still would get similar set of Ls and Ws as expected without that.

                As I said earlier, only exception of this rule lies in regarding virtual limits. If say, we see 15 Reds in a row and start to bet thereafter for black, we are not likely to get 15 more reds. That reaches beyond virtual limits and kind of impossible. I have defined virtual limits in another topic. Virtual limits signify only an expected limit and in no manner it guarantees absolute restraint.

It is very easy to see past spins/hands and say i would have not got this many Ls which is a foolish statement. Sorry for being rude. IF anybody can eliminate long series of losses by doing anything, he will play a brute force progression(like martingale) and keep winning without any issue.