Complex Wave Betting

[Evangelis]

Hello everyone,

I have been watching the discussions here for some time and decided to present some ideas as well. I have been analysing a system (well, it is rather an approach than a system) but maybe some of you have already gone this way to bring some more knowledge in.

I had been playing an ordinary system based on betting on streets, based on the Law of the Third. The system itself was sometimes winning, sometimes losing (let's say it was quite neutral), but in a very long run it was (though slightly) loosing (nothing surprising). In a graph, the system created a kind of waves around the zero levells, such as this:



Later on I got an idea that it was not necessary to play the streets as defined on the roulette table, instead you can use any combination of 3 numbers. So you can have clasical streets: 1-2-3, 4-5-6,..., but also 1-4-7, 2-5-8,... or 1-5-9, 2-6-7,... whatever... If we define, say, 10 or 15 different sets of streets and start playing all those systems simultaniously at a time, we would certainly be getting different results in each system. The graph would look like this:



There is always a most winning line and a most loosing line. As the lines go in waves, their position keeps changing. And I just asked myself: "Could it be possible to stick somehow to the top of the skyline of the graph (always follow the top line...)?" See the red line I added to the graph (the ideal line, which would keep us in profit):



Simply said, I just want to find the currently best system out of all those watched and this one to follow. So I made a program which was playing 25 different systems at once (virtually) and after each spin I switched to the system (in my real betting), which was the top winner at the moment. It was alright, if there was one dominant line only. Here is the red line, which shows the real betting and is pulled by the top line very nicely:



But a problem comes if there are 2 or more systems with a similar progress at the same level and these lines keep crossing each other too often. In this case our real line starts dropping down in comparison with the ideal line, the more often these lines cross. See here:



Well, that happens as whenever the leading line is beaten by another one, we switch to that new line, but we miss the profit this line has made when it crossed the previous leading line. And the more this happens, the more we loose and the further we get from the ideal line we wanted to follow. Well that's the way it is... But I got another idea - let's watch not only the top lines, but (as stupid it might look) also the lowest and worst lines on the bottom. If the leading line is only single and dominant, far ahead the others, our real line of profit is pulled in positive progression, but if there are more of these crossing each other, we keep dropping. On the bottom it should be the opposite: if there is only one dominant extremely loosing line and we start following it, we will go down to negative, but if two or more such lines appear and keep crossing each other, we start climbing, often very high. Lets see the orange line here:



Anyway, the fact is, that the maximum line (the red one) is limited by the top leadin line, but can be dropping without a limit. The other line, based on the minimum line (orange one) cannot drop bellow the lowest line, but can be climbing without any limit. And here again, we can follow the same principle: watch only these two lines and to follow the upper one, checking every spin which line is better. Then the result may be like this (we form a global - blue - line):



We can also use the other principle and to make the global line by the worse instead of the best line, in case the two lines cross often, this approach is more useful.

To sum up: to have this approach profitable, we need either one of the systems chosen to be dominant, or the worst system NOT to be dominant and cross very often with other lines. Still we need some more improvements to guarantee this. I tried to implement this one: When checking the top line after every spin, we can make sure there is no threat of crossing with the 2nd line in sight. If so (I set the limit of 100 units), we start following the second best line instead of the top one. Same at the bottom: we need this line to cross as often as possible, so if there is no crossing in sight, let's switch to the second worst line, or the third if necessary. Here is the test in 100.000 spins and survived very well. The results are not at all bad:



This is where I got so far. Any of you having any ideas or experience with this approach? How to improve it or make it even more reliable?

[VLSroulette]

Evangelis, [smiley=welcome/welcome.gif] thanks for sharing your aproach on complex wave betting, we sure would like to know more about the actual systems used to generate those interesting charts and debate on your approach.

When you were talking about crossings I couldn't help it: Winkel came to my mind!
Perhaphs winkel himself has something to add to your "C.W.B." theory ...

Looking forward to follow the improvements of this thread.
Victor

[Evangelis]

Thanks for invitation, Victor, glad to be here...

To complete the description I think I should also specify the basic system I used. Pretty simple. It is based on betting on numbers in streets. We just watch the numbers and as soon any street has been hit twice, we bet one unit on each of the two numbers from that street that hit. If there was only one number hit twice, we bet on the other two that did not hit. If this street is later hit again, we either win and remove all bets from this particular street and wait for another hit, or we have lost, so we increase the bets on both numbers by 1 unit. This way we are playing on all streets at once and we keep playing on and on and on.... Zero is ignored. Money management: we set a limit of maximal loss, I use 100 units. During the play we watch our maximum bankroll achieved, and we stop playing as soon as we get those 100 units under the maximum. We make a note about the current bankroll, remove all bets and start playing anew, collecting new numbers etc. Then we keep comparing the current bankroll with the bankroll at the last ended session, as a stop-loss. The profit is not limited in the session. E.g.: we win 300 units, later we lose 100 units and we stop the session at the bankroll of 200. Then we achieve bankroll of 250, start losing untill 150 and stop, etc. This system is good, though in a very long run it is losing What makes ït much stronger is the mentioned combination of a number of such systems, trying to stick to the most efficient one.

[trylobit]

It looks very logical and the results are very good...
Would you upload mentioned program?
Or would you paste in an example session to make everything crystal clear?

Thanks a lot!
Best regards.
tryl.

[Evangelis]

Well, there is no special system, I simply used Excel to test it, it was a little complicated, though possible...

Here is the testing file:
nolinks://roulette.euweb.cz/Complex Wave Betting.xls

I just had to delete most of the lines, so that the system shows 100 spins only. To test more spins it is just necessary to copy the last line down, on each sheet, as the formulas are interconnected (hope it will work for others as well, as I use a non-english version of Excel...). Anyone is free to check the system. When I did the testing, I could not use samples grater than 1000 spins, as the file became too huge and my computer started collapsing..., that's a disadvantage of Excel... Maybe a better software can do...

Note: there is a makro in the xls file used, which is a button used to reroll the random numbers.

[trylobit]

Thanks Evangelis!

That's the bigest excel file I have evere seen:)

I'll have a look and test it (dunno when... so much work now...).

Thanks again!
Tryl.

[Arteinvivo]

I have some ideas to counteract your problem

[Evangelis]

I am interested in any new ideas, which may improve the efficiency of betting.

[VLSroulette]

I have some ideas to counteract your problem

Go Arty go!

We surely would enjoy knowing your views on this!

[bombus]

Hi Evangelis.
I think every method ever thought of has what I call a "sweet spot", a point at which all the aspects of a system mesh together for optimum performance. This sweet spot is as good as it gets for that system. Your work with complex wave betting would seem to support the existence of these sweet spots.
For instance, one of my systems has increased performance by ceasing the chosen progression at 60% of the table limit. When this system is pushed to 100% table limit, any losing sequence, although less frequent, is too costly. Stopping at 60% means losing more often, but the reduction in dollars lost more than compensates. So that is just one step along the path of finding the sweet spot for this system.
Also, I found that future selections were somehow affected by past selections, so for example, the first bet is say number 1, with an 80% success rate. If next bet repeated number 1, the success rate of the second bet dropped to a 60% success rate. If the next bet was say number 2, an 80% success rate was retained. So when number 1 repeats, switch the bet to number 2... this is the basic idea, but it's the sort of thing that moves the system closer to its sweet spot.
Keep working with your complex waves, I think only good can come of it for you.

[hermes]

There was long time ago an interesting thread on German forum by Henry called Wellen Reiten. The problem was that he didn't want to say too much what he was doing. I had an idea about escarts / balance system which would surf on the top of the waves of the ever changing escarts and balance trends. The system would work on all ECs. The idea came from the French system developer Charles van Bockstaele on which is build the  most successful EC system by maxx-win called Conquest. I cannot get my finger on it! If somebody has it could be so kind and pass it to me for further research. Boockstaele exploited the escarts (when one side is very dominant eg. B15, R28) but when the trend later balanced he must run or lost. If we could make graph for every spin which trend (escart / balance) is on the top of the wave and subtle changes to it we could switch at changes to the stronger one. Balance means if the chances are almost equal (eg. B23, R24) The escarts and balance trends make the waves we could surf on. If escart stay stronger we play win +1 unit, loss -1 unit and when the balance shows up stronger we play win -1 unit, loss +1 unit. Actually, just to play the balance is pretty strong system. If we could recognize fast enough the subtle changes of the wave it would be a winner system. It needs some sensitive analyzing software for escarts and balancing trends, that's all.
There must be 3 different charts for B/R, E/O, and L/H. I bet you if e.g. B/R will have balance trend the E/O or L/H will go escart nuts. Then we could play balance on B/R and escart on the other EC (L/H?).  It is called diversify on stock market.
Cheers Hermes

[alarian]

All I can say with the amount of time I have to write this reply is that this is some seriously interresting brainsauce! 

I'll be following this topic for sure and I hope I'll get some free time to join in the collective thought process.

[See_Jerek]

I am interested in any new ideas, which may improve the efficiency of betting.

Your concepts are really interesting!
I shall be following closely

[Herb]

Complex Wave.

nolinks://nolinks.woodenstilts.co.uk/images/animations/clown_waving_hc.gif




[url=nolinks://lh4.ggpht.com/mxforce/RuPUzg021wI/AAAAAAAAAQw/5Gz1l5RVBfo/hand-waving-goodbye.jpg]nolinks://lh4.ggpht.com/mxforce/RuPUzg021wI/AAAAAAAAAQw/5Gz1l5RVBfo/hand-waving-goodbye.jpg[/url]





nolinks://nolinks.maxwellcreek.org/images/newsletter/2q2006/smart_guy_waving_lg_nwm.gif

[The Spiders Kiss]

@ Herb    

[The Spiders Kiss]

-