The WABO System

[atlantis]

I think this was just a bad run of spins for the stretched D'Alembert betting method.  It's not that discouraging because every system has a sequence that can kill it.  As long as there's a spin on each bet that can hurt you, it's always possible for enough of them to happen in a row to tank any system, every now and then.  Hopefully, more then's than now's.
I will continue with the spin sequence, which has another 200 spins, to see how long it takes to get to +7.  Even though it went for a long stretch without reaching our target, I don't doubt that eventually it will and there doesn't seem to be much of a risk of getting too deep in the hole with a 100 or 200 unit bank roll.

Casino Wiesbaden 31 MAY 2010 - table 3 (H/L)
=============================
6-4 to LOW (First 10 spins)

L H
==
7-4 W1 +1
7-5 L1 +0
7-6 L1 -1
7-6 L0.5 -1.5 **Zero
7-7 L1 -2.5 **3 L's Incr stake to 2
8-7 W2 -0.5
9-7 W2 +1.5 **RESET PROG
10-7 W1 +2.5
10-8 L1 +1.5
11-8 W1 +2.5
12-8 W1 +3.5
13-8 W1 +4.5
13-9 L1 +3.5
14-9 W1 +4.5
15-9 W1 +5.5
15-10 L1 +4.5
16-10 W1 +5.5
16-11 L1 +4.5
17-11 W1 +5.5
18-11 W1 +6.5
18-12 L1 +5.5
19-12 W1+6.5
20-12 W1 +7.5

+7.5 in 33 spins (total)


A.

[moles40]

Hi Atlantis,i'm really liking the look of this method.

Just to make sure I am clear.

We track the H and L on the wheel for ten spins and whichever one is the dominant we start betting on that.

We carry on betting the same H or L until their is a change in the dominant  H or L.

we increase the stake by 1 point if we lose 3 in a row and continue at that level until we are either back in profit-in which we go back to our original stake-or if we lose 3 in a row we increase stakes by 1 again etc........

Thanks

[atlantis]

Hi Atlantis,I'm really liking the look of this method.

Just to make sure I am clear.

We track the H and L on the wheel for ten spins and whichever one is the dominant we start betting on that.

We carry on betting the same H or L until their is a change in the dominant  H or L.

we increase the stake by 1 point if we lose 3 in a row and continue at that level until we are either back in profit-in which we go back to our original stake-or if we lose 3 in a row we increase stakes by 1 again etc........

Thanks

That is correct moles. Remember the rules say the dominant side must be leading by at least 2 before placing bet at the start... If a 0 occurs during betting you want to be on a table with the "le partage" rule (half stake returns)
I do not count the zero loss towards a losing set of 3 bets except if there have already been 2 losses and and also a 0 loss at the same level eg: a combination of 2 losses and 2 zero losses then I will increase by 1 unit as if I had three normal L's in a row (I therefore count the 2 zero losses as 1 full loss)
Some games are quick ; some are protracted
Quit anytime ahead. I go for +7 - but that other system GLC mentioned has a target of +4. Might be better at +4
A suggested exit point (stop) is -28.
If you've been struggling and recover into profit - better to take a small win and leave a winner!


A.

[Phishalot]

When tracking after the first ten, are we continuing to look at the last ten or everything since we started.  Example: we start with 6high and 4low, our next spin we get a low Making it if we just 6H/5L for keeping track or the all or 5H/5L for just the last 10.

I was looking at the results posted and many times there will be a run of one side putting it at ranges of 12/6 then the down side will start winning and eat up all the profit made.  By only using the last ten wouldn't the switch be caught earlier?

Thank
Phishalot

[atlantis]

When tracking after the first ten, are we continuing to look at the last ten or everything since we started.  Example: we start with 6high and 4low, our next spin we get a low Making it if we just 6H/5L for keeping track or the all or 5H/5L for just the last 10.

I was looking at the results posted and many times there will be a run of one side putting it at ranges of 12/6 then the down side will start winning and eat up all the profit made.  By only using the last ten wouldn't the switch be caught earlier?

Thank
Phishalot

Hi Phishalot. YES. I now see that it should be played the ADVANTAGE way!
From now on I will test using the SAME progression rules but bet only on the leader of the LAST 13 spins only EVERY TIME... (as in advantage system that GLC mentioned)
Phishalot, this DOES make a lot of sense and I think you are correct; we can eliminate losses better that way. We switch to a new side only when that becomes the more dominant eg: 7-6
We now look at the last 13 numbers spun (ignore 0) after each spin.
So this easily understandable change is now officially designated Modification #2.
Thanks very much Phishalot, GLC for your idea. It is an improvement I am SURE!

Cheers,
A.

UPDATE: well after some testing I am not sure now... It doesn't seem any better this way on those numbers I posted earlier.. In fact a lot worse - so I just dunno right now

[GLC]

Hi Phishalot. YES. I now see that it should be played the ADVANTAGE way!
From now on I will test using the SAME progression rules but bet only on the leader of the LAST 13 spins only EVERY TIME... (as in advantage system that GLC mentioned)
Phishalot, this DOES make a lot of sense and I think you are correct; we can eliminate losses better that way. We switch to a new side only when that becomes the more dominant eg: 7-6
We now look at the last 13 numbers spun (ignore 0) after each spin.
So this easily understandable change is now officially designated Modification #2.
Thanks very much Phishalot, GLC for your idea. It is an improvement I am SURE!

Cheers,
A.

A.

I have been mulling this system over and I think there are a couple of things happening.  First, if you use the 13 spin controller the movements from 1 E.C. to the next are more gradual.  If you use the 10 spin controller the movements are a little faster.  If you used something like 7 or even 5 spin controller you would be able to jump on trends much more quickly.  At any time a sequence or sequences can favor 1 over the others by a little or maybe a lot.  I have been testing the 7 spin method and like it because it jumps from one side to the other more quickly.

I feel like I lose a lot of bets with the 10 spin method during the transition when we have 5 vs 5.  Maybe it would be a good idea to go virtual when it's 5 vs 5 until one side or the other goes dominant.

G.

UPDATE: well after some testing I am not sure now... It doesn't seem any better this way on those numbers I posted earlier.. In fact a lot worse - so I just dunno right now

[atlantis]

I have returned to the 10 spin wabo method and using the modification 1 progression. This time I track another EC too.
I picked the ODD/EVEN and bet these in conjunction with HIGH/LOW. Maybe if one does badly the other will compensate. Also, maybe we can get quicker to the win target.

casino wiesbaden 31 May 2010 - table 9

H - L                             O- E
========================
4-6 to  low                    3-7 to even
4-7 W1 +1                    4-7 L1 -1
4-8 W1 +2                    4-8 W1 +0
5-8 L1  +1                     5-8 L1  -1
6-8 L1  +0                     5-9 W1 +0
7-8 L1  -1  *3 L's           6-9 L1  -1
7-8 L1  -2 *zero            6-9 L0.5 -1.5 *zero
7-9 W2 +0                    6-10 W1 -0.5
7-10 W2 +2 *reset       6-11 W1 +0.5
7-11 W1 +3                  6-12 W1 +1.5
7-12 W1 +4                  6-13 W1 +2.5
7-13 W1 +5                  6-14 W1 +3.5

TOTAL H/L and O/E = +8.5 PTS in 11 spins
=============================

Nice result. Cheers,
A.

[atlantis]

casino wiesbaden 01 JUNE 2010 - table 3

H - L                               O - E
=======================
4-6 - 10 spins                   2-8 - 10 spins
5-6 L1 -1                          3-8 L1 -1
6-6 L1 -2                          3-9 W1 +0
6-7 L1 -3 *3 L's                4-9 L1 -1
7-7 L2 - 5                         4-10 W1 +0
7-8 W2 -3                        5-10 L1 -1
8-8 L2 -5                          5-11 W1 +0
9-8 L2 -7 *switch             5-12 W1 +1
9-9 L2 -9 *3 L's                5-13 W1 +2
9-10 L3 -12 *switch         5-14 W1 +3
9-11 W3 -9                       5-15 W1 +4
10-11 L3 -12                     6-15 L1 +3
10-12 W3 -9                     7-15 L1 +2
10-13 W3 -6                     8-15 L1 +1 * 3 L's
11-13 L3 -9                       8-16 W2 +3
11-14 W3 -6                     9-16 L2 +1
11-15 W3 -3                     10-16 L2 -1
11-16 W3 +0 *reset         10-17 W2 +1
12-16 L1 -1                       10-18 W2 +3
13-16 L1 -2                       10-19 W2 +5 *reset
13-17 W1 -1                      10-20 W1 +6
14-17 L1 -2                        10-21 W1 +7
15-17 L1 -3                        10-22 W1 +8
16-17 L1 -4 *3 L's              10-23 W1 +9
16-18 W2 -2                       10-24 W1 +10

TOTAL H/L + O/E = +8PTS IN 24 spins
=============================

Cheers,
A.

[atlantis]

tested another session
casino wiesbaden 01 JUNE 2010 - Table 4

TOTAL H/L and O/E = +9 in 36 spins.

Regards,
A.

[moles40]

tested another session
casino wiesbaden 01 JUNE 2010 - Table 4

TOTAL H/L and O/E = +9 in 36 spins.

Regards,
A.

Looks good Atlantis

[GLC]

I have returned to the 10 spin wabo method and using the modification 1 progression. This time I track another EC too.
I picked the ODD/EVEN and bet these in conjunction with HIGH/LOW. Maybe if one does badly the other will compensate. Also, maybe we can get quicker to the win target.

casino wiesbaden 31 May 2010 - table 9

H - L                             O- E
========================
4-6 to  low                    3-7 to even
4-7 W1 +1                    4-7 L1 -1
4-8 W1 +2                    4-8 W1 +0
5-8 L1  +1                     5-8 L1  -1
6-8 L1  +0                     5-9 W1 +0
7-8 L1  -1  *3 L's           6-9 L1  -1
7-8 L1  -2 *zero            6-9 L0.5 -1.5 *zero
7-9 W2 +0                    6-10 W1 -0.5
7-10 W2 +2 *reset       6-11 W1 +0.5
7-11 W1 +3                  6-12 W1 +1.5
7-12 W1 +4                  6-13 W1 +2.5
7-13 W1 +5                  6-14 W1 +3.5

TOTAL H/L and O/E = +8.5 PTS in 11 spins
=============================

Nice result. Cheers,
A.

Atlantis,

This post is not intended to be negative at all.  Just making some observations.

I'm not too sure this bet selection method gives us any advantage over any other mechanical E. C. bet selection.  I interpreted your spins and played them according to the bet selection method I posted in reply #7 and came up with +9 on this sequence using your bet progression.  My bet selection method isn't any better than a lot of others that have been published on this and other forums.

I had to start off with a loss because I couldn't tell what the previous spin was to determine if I would had won the 1st bet and didn't want to skew the results to the positive side.

I think that one of the things working for your bot is the bet progression is very safe and allows for a smaller bankroll and eventually pulls out to the positive in all but the very worst of spins.

We definitely need a lot of testing to prove that using the previous 10 spins has that much effect on our bet selection. 

I find that the aged book "Monte Carlo Anecdotes" has just about covered everything there is to know about E. C. selection and betting.  The "Bread Winner" system is similar to your triple Alembert but safer though more of a grind.  I think Victor mentioned that many of the Spanish folks use that system to grind out a win on a daily basis.  Mr J would be driven to distraction just thinking about it.

I'm not throwing in the towel on this system, just trying to decide if it's worth all the tracking effort for the bet selection.

In your post 1 June 2010 table 3 I ran it through my mechanical bet selection method and ended with +12 units with your same 24 spins.

Keep testing.  We need to be sure before we dump our wad at this.  You know how many times a system looks great only to discover that in the long run it's heart breaker.

G.

[GLC]

A.

1 last comment.  I think the authors system in Monte Carlo Anecdotes is the best overall bet selection method I've seen.  The only thing that can give you an extended series of losses is to enter doublets on the wrong step.  In which case you lose every spin. But, if you enter doublets on the right step, you win every bet.  He suggests, and I agree, if you find yourself on the losing side of the doublets, after 4 losses in a row, reverse your sequencing and you'll pull out of the tailspin.

I have tested many sequences using his bet selection and your bet progression instead of his, and I am way ahead of the game.

Cheers, G.

[atlantis]

1 last comment.  I think the authors system in Monte Carlo Anecdotes is the best overall bet selection method I've seen.  The only thing that can give you an extended series of losses is to enter doublets on the wrong step.  In which case you lose every spin. But, if you enter doublets on the right step, you win every bet.  He suggests, and I agree, if you find yourself on the losing side of the doublets, after 4 losses in a row, reverse your sequencing and you'll pull out of the tailspin.

I have tested many sequences using his bet selection and your bet progression instead of his, and I am way ahead of the game.
Cheers, G.

Hi George. I agree with your comments in general. It needs more testing for sure. It's pretty safe in keeping stakes down and we could have a win goal of +8 and a loss of say -24. Now I have read "the authors system" from the monte carlo anecdotes and I must confess I have never tried it with the bet progression I am using in this wabo system. Would you care to post a small example that illustrates how you use this same progression with that system? As you remarked it is still too early to throw in the towel - maybe we can engineer it to deliver consistent steady profits ?

A.

[GLC]

Hi George. I agree with your comments in general. It needs more testing for sure. It's pretty safe in keeping stakes down and we could have a win goal of +8 and a loss of say -24. Now I have read "the authors system" from the monte carlo anecdotes and I must confess I have never tried it with the bet progression I am using in this wabo system. Would you care to post a small example that illustrates how you use this same progression with that system? As you remarked it is still too early to throw in the towel - maybe we can engineer it to deliver consistent steady profits ?

A.

Atlantis,

I play the author's system exactly the way he does except that I get a little riskier and if I lose the 1-2-4-8 sequence, I increase my bets to 2-4-8-16 until I reach a new net high or lose this sequence.
I if lose I increase to 4-8-16-32.  If I lose this sequence, I take the loss and start over at 1-2-4-8.

I have played this system quite extensively and so far I've had pretty good results.  It is not the grail for sure.  If a person had the patience to wait for a couple of losses before beginning the progression, it would be a much safer strategy.

In the long run I don't know if this stays profitable or will eventually fail.  If someone did a simulation of about 10,000 spins I can guarantee that it would end in the hole.

As far as your bet selection all you do is use the Same/Intermittent process to determine where to bet and use your triple Alembert to vary the size of your bets.

G.

[atlantis]

Atlantis,

I play the author's system exactly the way he does except that I get a little riskier and if I lose the 1-2-4-8 sequence, I increase my bets to 2-4-8-16 until I reach a new net high or lose this sequence.
I if lose I increase to 4-8-16-32.  If I lose this sequence, I take the loss and start over at 1-2-4-8.

I have played this system quite extensively and so far I've had pretty good results.  It is not the grail for sure.  If a person had the patience to wait for a couple of losses before beginning the progression, it would be a much safer strategy.

In the long run I don't know if this stays profitable or will eventually fail.  If someone did a simulation of about 10,000 spins I can guarantee that it would end in the hole.

As far as your bet selection all you do is use the Same/Intermittent process to determine where to bet and use your triple Alembert to vary the size of your bets.

G.

Hi GLC,
Thanks for explanation. I have an idea for you. Why not play the "authors system" using the MAXSIM progression?
link:://:.roulettesystemreviews.com/freeroulettesystems.html
Check it out if you don't know and see if can be applicable here...

Cheers,
A.