Eschec Even-Chances System

[cheese]

wheel sectors seem to hit more.>

No offense, my friend, but thats not possible.

[Proofreaders2000]

A lot of things happen in Roulette (as well as in life) that are not possible.

[Jish]

wheel sectors seem to hit more.>

No offense, my friend, but thats not possible.

i agree with proof cheese, i see wheel sectors appear to hit more

[manaman]

@Manaman: that's unfortunate.  Did you wait to see which color was dominant before placing bets?

Yes.. after the first 7 spins there is always 3 of 1 and 4 of the other... and I was betting on the dominant 4 after each spin, thats correct play right?

Though looking at those results maybe playing the less dominant would do better    ..you could probaly cut the martingale prog down to 1 2 4 8 which cuts the loss in half..... or maybe do a type of flat bet 1111.. until win then 2222... ect and reset back to 1111 when bankroll is at its highest.

[cheese]

I see wheel sectors appear to hit more>>

If they did, wouldn't every player have noticed it by now and be exploiting it? Its an illusion that will fail under testing.

>>A lot of things happen in Roulette that are not possible. >>

But they don't happen on a regular basis and are not dependable.

[Proofreaders2000]

@Manaman: Good suggestions.  You could play against the dominant color.  I was going on a popular belief to follow the trend.  That was my thinking about having some of the opposite color as a minority of the 18 numbers either way, A or B.  Flat betting is good, maybe a positive Fibonicci, perhaps.

@Cheese: you have given me several abstract reasons why Eschec should not work, but not one why it should.  Any suggestion to that end would be appreciated.

[Danger Man]

Any selection of 18 numbers will behave in exactly the same way as any other. One half of the wheel is the same as Red. The physical locations of numbers on the table or wheel are irrelevant. Both variables have the same probability of hitting which cannot be altered, therefore they are both subject to exactly the same levels of variance/deviation,  therefore they will both experience identical upswings and drawdowns, therefore there is no difference between them...forget about whether or not they are based on the wheel or the table layout. It doesn't matter, no advantage can be gained from it. It is correct that trying to differentiate between any bets that have the same probability of hitting is impossible and any results you find illusory. It is an amateur's mistake. I can easily prove this by writing an excel tool to analyse Red and one half of the wheel. Your only hope, and everyone's only hope, is to discover a betting series with an automatic balanced variance, thus allowing you to use a limited progression with confidence to step through a downswing.

[Proofreaders2000]

"I can easily prove this by writing an excel tool to analyse Red and one half of the wheel."-Danger Man
If someone would conduct this test or someone would verify your results, Dangerman, the test would appear more credible.

IMO there is wisdom in concentrating a bet on parts of the wheel that have been hitting frequently and Eschec is an attempt at doing so.

[Danger Man]

My statement doesn't lack credibility since I know it already as fact. I will make an analysis tool tonight if I can be bothered. If not I will do it tomorrow. I'll upload the tool when it's done and you can test it for yourself.

[manaman]

@Manaman: Good suggestions.  You could play against the dominant color.  I was going on a popular belief to follow the trend.  That was my thinking about having some of the opposite color as a minority of the 18 numbers either way, A or B.  Flat betting is good, maybe a positive Fibonicci, perhaps. >>>>

hmmmmm... I started testing the opposite with different set of numbers, using the least shown and it was doing worse this time round. I think like dangerman said in his post I half read that it dosn't matter which you pick and I now agree with that.

Anyway I went over the results from yesterday and this time wait until LL then go up 1 on a loss and down 1 on a win.. but stop betting when the next L comes after  W/W's ...but carry on the progression after next LL.

As you will see at the bottom it ended +54 which was better that -6... also different from last test is a added W at the bottom but that's what came after the 5 L's and original way would be on 0 but this way +84  

L        
L        
L   L1  -6    
L   L2  -12  
W W3  0    
W W2  +12  
L   L1  +6      
L        
W W2  +18  
L  L1   +12      
L        
W W2  +24  
W W1  +30    
L  L1   +24      
L        
W W2  +36    
W W1  +42    
W W1  +48
L  L1   +42      
W    
W    
L      
L        
L  L2  +30      
W W3 +48    
W W2 +60    
L  L1  +54        
W    
L        
L    
L  L2   +42      
W W3  +60    
L  L2   +48      
W      
W    
W    
L        
L        
W W3  +66
W W2  +78  
L  L1   +72      
L        
W W2  +90  
L  L1   +84    
W    
W      
W    
W      
L      
W    
L        
L        
W  W2  +96  
W  W1  +102  
L   L1   +96        
W    
L        
L            
L   L2   +84      
W  W3  +102
W  W2  +114
L   L1   +108    
L        
L  L2    +96      
L  L3    +78
L  L4    +54
W W5   +84

[manaman]

Here is a short 35 spins.. [ ] = virtual bet.

[L]
[L]
W+6
L   0
[W]
[L]
[W]
[W]
[W]
[L]
[L]
W +12
L  +6
[W]
[W]
[W]
[W]
[W]
[L]
[L]
W +18
W +24
L  +18
[L]
L  +6
W +24
W +36
L  +30

[cheese]

Any selection of 18 numbers will behave in exactly the same way as any other. One half of the wheel is the same as Red.> they are both subject to exactly the same levels of variance/deviation,>>

Thank You! I don't see why stating the facts is considered negative. A fact is a fact, ignore it at your peril.

[manaman]

38 spins.......

[L]
[W]
[W]
[W]
[W]
[W]
[W]
[L]
[L]
W +6
W +12
W +18
W +24
W +30
W +36
L  +30
[L]
W +42
L  +36
[W]
[W]
[L]
[W]
[W]
[L]
[L]
L +24
L +6
W+30
W+48
L +36

[manaman]

Any selection of 18 numbers will behave in exactly the same way as any other. One half of the wheel is the same as Red.> they are both subject to exactly the same levels of variance/deviation,>>

Thank You! I don't see why stating the facts is considered negative. A fact is a fact, ignore it at your peril.

Quauntum physics is starting to prove that a fact is only 'fact for YOU!' in 'YOUR' life experience in this multi dimentional universe. And it has only become a fact for YOU because YOU have believed it into being. See we live in a world where anything is possible and the only limatation is your mind.

When people say, "you cannot beat roulette" It cannot be beaten" "this here fact is 100% fact and cannot be denied" "If you play roulette you cannot beat the house edge" ".........cannot ......cannot........ cannot..........."

.....every cannot YOU say is a creation for 'YOU' and the people who also believe in it.

Henry Fords quote will now makes sense......

"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right."

Bring on 2012... the negative will start to banish this earth (negative people included  ) and by 2032 the world will be a much much better place  

[Danger Man]

Mathematical facts apply to everyone, not just a select few or don't apply to people who don't believe in them. This is the nature of FACT set aside from the nature of THEORY. We all play the same game in the same dimension and if we were to play side by side we'd observe the same events. I agree that such things as ambition are constrained only by human imagination but there is a practical side to consider. The house edge isn't physically going to go away because I want it to or because I simply imagine that it's not there, is it?

[Danger Man]

-