Procedure: (A) RED Streets: 1,2,3: 7,8,9: 16,17,18: 19,20,21: 25,26,27: 34,35,36
(B) BLACK Strts: 4,5,6: 10,11,12: 13,14,15: 22,23,24: 28,29,30: 31,32,33
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at past spin values' colors. If Black or Red is Dominant (Four or more of seven)
Play A or B respectively continuously with a 1,2,4,8,16 progression.
Bankroll suggestion: $186 for $1 base bet/street
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test#1: Dublinbet Roulette #2: Sat**day March 13, 2010 7:42pm: Bankroll=$1000
Waiting for 4 of 7 Colors for Dominant Color
11(b), 16(r), 7(r), 16(r), 7(r), 27(r), 30(r), 17(b), 9(r), 20(b), 15(b)
Red is Dominant: $6 on all (A) streets (from above): #22(x)
$12 on all (A) streets: #35 (win)
Red is still dominant: $6 on all (A) streets: 32(x)
$12 on all (A) streets: 14(x)
$24 on all (A) streets: 25(win)
(The marquee now shows half red, half black---wait for 4 of 7 colors dominance)
35,31,32,32,1,4,20,17,21,7...0,28,17
Black is dominant: $6 on all (B) streets: 5(win)
End session: Ending bankroll=$1018
Interesting proof but does it make a diffrerence waiting for 4/7, 5/6, 3/8, x/y?
Four of seven colors dominance is a safeguard. If a bettor is comfortable with 5 of 6 dominant, okay.
Doesn't betting red or black pay the same on a win? And you cover all 18 red or black, not just some of them.
There is room for randomness with a minority of the other color in each (A) and (B) streets.
Thanks for sharing Proofreaders2000
i decided to have a quick test see if i could get a streak of wins without even seeing a streak of reds.
played positive progression as follows 2,4,8,16,2,4,8,.................
32 B
20 A
2 A
14 B
24 B
1 A
21 A (PLAYING A)
21 A W +2
13 B L -4
13 B L -2 (END OF A START B )
36 A L -2 (END OF B START A)
7 A W +2
15 B L-4
26 A W +2
3 A W +4
24 B L -8
35 A W +2
9 A W +4
26 A W +8
7 A W +16
19 A W +2
9 A W +4
18 A W +8
3 A W +16
13 B L -2
18 A W +2
2 A W +4
15 B L -8
25 A W +2
15 B L -4
24 B L -2 (END OF A DIMINACE FOR NOW)..................END SESSION +42 UNITS
i had a streak of 8wins in a row however only 5 reds in a row appeared.
roulette as a hobby = everyday is a school day
could come in handy when no streaks seem to be happening but there is always streaks happening at the wheel we just need as much insight into the numbers as you can.
mattjono
There is room for randomness with a minority of the other color>>
18 numbers bet is 18 numbers bet and the outcomes will always be absolutely identical. How could they not be? Bet red or pick 18 numbers randomly, there is no difference.
@Cheese: The difference between betting streets and betting either red or black is streets form sectors of the wheel, IMO therein lies the advantage.
I like Mattjono had a little go... sadly it got to +180 then lost on the 16 part of the progression @ spin 72...
L 1
L 2
L 4
L 8
W 16 6
W 1 12
L 1
L 2
W 4 18
L 1
L 2
W 4 24
W 1 30
L 1
L 2
W 4 36
W 1 42
W 1 48
L 1
W 2 54
W 1 60
L 1
L 2
L 4
W 8 66
W 1 72
L 1
W 2 78
L 1
L 2
L 4
W 8 84
L 1
W 2 90
W 1 96
W 1 102
L 1
L 2
W 4 108
W 1 114
L 1
L 2
W 4 120
L 1
W 2 126
W 1 132
W 1 136
W 1 144
L 1
W 2 150
L 1
L 2
W 4 156
W 1 162
L 1
W 2 168
L 1
L 2
L 4
W 8 174
W 1 180
L 1
L 2
L 4
L 8
L 16 -6
@Manaman: that's unfortunate. Did you wait to see which color was dominant before placing bets?
@Mattjono: Congratulations on your winning session and for the "up as you win" suggestion.
@All: I wanted to add different strategies suggested on even money bets
(A) RED Streets: 1,2,3: 7,8,9: 16,17,18: 19,20,21: 25,26,27: 34,35,36
(B) BLACK Strts: 4,5,6: 10,11,12: 13,14,15: 22,23,24: 28,29,30: 31,32,33
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky Strike's method: A,A,B *continuously* -or- B,B,A (depending on which color is dominant)
Kingspin's method: A,B,A,B...(continuously)
Iboba's "simple and profitable" method: Wait for A or B to miss 4 times, bet opposite 1,2,4,8,16 progression.
Proofreaders, looks promising to me, and add prederminate series AAB....etc..(after wait...). always works
and helps pretty well the systems ( mine sys. at least yes). Good work.
Do not forget Iboba¨s bet, up +1 at loss / down -1 at win.
And if you get to + 180 or less, go home, you are already a *winner*, that day.
therein lies the advantage.>>
I don't understand. If the wheel produces random results, what difference does it make which 18 numbers you bet?
@Cheese: On paper 18 numbers is 18 numbers. With execution, wheel sectors seem to hit more.
The advantage to bet R or B is on European Roulette where you get 50% back if color hit or French roulette where you get all back if your color hits again (what happens in average 50% of the time).
Hermes
@Hermes: Standard EC Bets on a French Wheel have a lower edge with En Prison Rule (if you can find a casino with such conditions).
I however welcome you to try Eschec with fun money and post your results.
wheel sectors seem to hit more.>
No offense, my friend, but thats not possible.
A lot of things happen in Roulette (as well as in life) that are not possible.
Quote from: cheese on March 15, 2010, 07:07:33 AM
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
Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on March 14, 2010, 07:16:59 PM
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
"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.
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: 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
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
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.
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
Quote from: cheese on March 15, 2010, 07:32:54 PM
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 :laugh:) and by 2032 the world will be a much much better place :laugh:
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?
Manaman your post above was removed for using inappropriate language
we live in a world where anything is possible and the only limatation is your mind.>>
Not true. We are surrounded by limitations. You can't jump off a building and fly like a bird without some kind of device to help you. You can't stay underwater for long without help. The list is endless of things you can't do on your own. I didn't say roulette can't be beat, all I said was any 18 numbers perform exactly the same as any other 18 numbers. Its a law for a reason.
Here is a quick refresher of the Eschec Even-Chances System
(A) RED Streets: 1,2,3: 7,8,9: 16,17,18: 19,20,21: 25,26,27: 34,35,36
(B) BLACK Strts: 4,5,6: 10,11,12: 13,14,15: 22,23,24: 28,29,30: 31,32,33
Original Method: Wait for four out of seven spin value colors (from the most recent spin values) and bet either (A) streets or (B) streets w/1,2,4,8,16 progression until a new dominant color emerges or neither is dominant.
Manaman method: Wait until either (A) or (B) loses twice (in a row) then bet losing letter continuously, going 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.
btw thanks for the contribution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@All: I wanted to add two pattern matching methods:
PI bet: bet opposite of second most recent spin value: I.e.
#1 (A) (Most recent spin value)
#22 (B)--second most recent..*so bet opposite this letter each time (in this case would be A), the next bet would be B, and so on.
----------------------------------------------------------
Iboba's Pattern Matcher: bet opposite 12th most recent spin value.
"Mathematical facts apply to everyone, not just a select few or don't apply to people who don't believe in them.... 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, March 15, 2010
"I don't see why stating the facts is considered negative. A fact is a fact, ignore it at your peril."--Cheese, March 15, 2010
If I looked at the unfair payouts at these games of chance only I would never gamble. At the same time, I would be missing out on some of the best money-making opportunities possible (when it is time to bet).
In theory bumblebees are not supposed to be able to fly, yet they do. So, despite the maths, there must be a way to make money at Roulette.
Testing with new numbers and came across this bad run....
[W]
[L]
[W]
[W]
[L]
[L]
W +6
L 0
[W]
[W]
[W]
[W]
[L]
[L]
L -12
L -30
L -54
L -84
L -120
W -78
W -48
L -72
[L]
L -102
L -138
W -96
W -60
L -90
Yes 7 L's in a row..... means the LL method is on a loser.
This next way is from the same set of numbers but instead, start betting after a W and stop on a L (still going up 1 and down 1)
[W]
L -6
[W]
W +6
L 0
[L]
[W]
L -12
[W]
W +6
W +18
W +24
L +18
[L]
[L]
[L]
[L]
[L]
[L]
[W]
W +30
L +24
[L]
[L]
[L]
[W]
W +36
L +30
Much better 8)
The only way this will lose is WLWLWLWLWLWL... but if that happens you've been reading/believing too many negative facts :blink: ............ :haha:
Going back over the previous testing in this thread the LL way against the new way came out like this.......
Numbers in ()= previous LL results.
[L]
[L]
[L] (-6)
[L] (-12)
[W] ( 0)
W+6 (+12)
L 0 (+6)
[L]
[W] (+18)
L -12 (+12)
[L]
[W] (+24)
W+6 (+30)
L -6 (+24)
[L]
[W] (+36)
W+12 (+42)
W+24 (+48)
L +18 (+42)
[W]
W+30
L +24
[L]
[L] (+30)
[W] (+48)
W+36 (+60)
L +30 (+54)
[W]
L +18
[L]
[L] (+42)
[W] (+60)
L 0 (+48)
[W]
W+24
W+42
L +30
[L]
[W] (+66)
W+48 (+78)
L +36 (+72)
[L]
[W] (+90)
L +18 (+84)
[W]
W+42
W+60
W+72
L +66
[W]
L+54
[L]
[W] (+96)
W+72 (+102)
L (+96)
[W]
L +60
[L]
[L] (+84)
[W] (+102)
W+78 (+114)
L +66 (+108)
[L]
[L] (+96)
[L] (+78)
[L] (+54)
[W] (+84)
--------------
[L]
[L]
[W] (+6)
L -6 (0)
[W]
L -18
[W]
W 0
W+12
L +6
[L]
[W] (+12)
L -6 (+6)
[W]
W+12
W+24
W+30
W+36
L +30
[L]
[W] (+18)
W +42 (+24)
L +36 (+18)
[L]
[L] (+6)
[W] (+24)
W+48 (+36)
L +42 (+30)
-------------
[L]
[W]
W+6
W+12
W+18
W+24
W+30
L +24
[L]
[W] (+6)
W+36 (+12)
W+42 (+18)
W+48 (+24)
W+54 (+30)
W+60 (+36)
L +54 (+30)
[L]
[W] (+42)
L +48 (+36)
[W]
W +66
L +54
[W]
W +72
L +60
[L]
[L] (+24)
[L] (+6)
[W] (+30)
W +78 (+48)
L +66 (+36)
Quote from: Proofreaders2000
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.
I have uploaded an excel tool to downloads (waiting for approval). It analyses the differences between table-based even chances (Red/Black) and a pair of unconnected wheel-based even chances (European layout). The wheel-based ECs are comprised of two 9-number sectors, just to prove that composition doesn't matter.
Wheel half A: 26,3,35,12,28,7,29,18,22,5,27,13,36,11,30,8,23,10
Wheel half B: 32,15,19,4,21,2,25,17,34,5,24,16,33,1,20,14,31,9
The spreadsheet is preloaded with 10,000 numbers. You can delete these and paste your own in the orange column. The tool doesn't actually do that much beyond count the amount of hits, the percentage and the amount of singles/series (of 2 or more) for each EC. It will prove that all 18-number groups, regardless of their location on the table or wheel conform to the same distribution models. You'll find that no matter how many trials you run the actual values will always be within 1 or 2% of the expected and the differences between the ECs will also be within a couple of percent, making them statistically insignificant.
This could also be replicated for dozens, lines, streets, anything. It proves that you never have better than 18 chances to win and 19 chances to lose on even money, regardless of tracking, which triggers you use, whether you bet on the streak or against it, bet on chops or against them.
I'm not saying systems can't win, they just won't in the long run. Money management doesn't matter either unless you have a positive expectancy since you can never escape downswings despite everything you do to try and avoid them. I don't want to be accused of "negativity" but this is just the way it is.
*I'm not saying systems can't win, they just won't in the long run. Money management doesn't matter either unless you have a positive expectancy since you can never escape downswings despite everything you do to try and avoid them. I don't want to be accused of "negativity" but this is just the way it is.*
We(I) not saying systems can¨t loss, they just WIN in the short run( 100-200 spins / +36 or + 72, or....).
These small gains are satisfactory (enough) for some like me and others, we do not dream of millions.
manaman this the 2nd post with inappropriate language in it and has once again been deleted, you will face getting banned if it keeps up.
Quote from: kattila
We(I) not saying systems can¨t loss, they just WIN in the short run( 100-200 spins / +36 or + 72, or....).
These small gains are satisfactory (enough) for some like me and others, we do not dream of millions.
There is no such thing as short term. Any sample of numbers you play is always part of the long run. Your next session is just a continuation of the last. It's important to be pragmatic about how the game works rather than believing in esoteric and irrelevant nonsense like manaman.
I do not want to disagree with you, I know my *job* and you yours, so I do not care.
It is the second time someone tells me
* There is no such thing as short term *
So you're probably the same person (6). I do not care anyway , again.
>>Any sample of numbers you play is always part of the long run. Your next session is just a continuation of the last.>>
Here's what usually happens. A player makes a small win and leaves. He does it again next time. He starts to think, hmm, I'll just play till I win a small amount and I'll stay in the short term. This keeps working for 8-10 sessions and then stops working at all. He can't seem to get ahead, let alone win a small amount. Soon all his profit is gone and now he's losing.
Its never the amount of time you play or the amount you win or your money management that matters. Its who has the edge, you or the casino, that dictates who will prevail.
Quote from: kattila on March 16, 2010, 01:10:21 PM
I do not want to disagree with you, I know my *job* and you yours, so I do not care.
It is the second time someone tells me
* There is no such thing as short term *
So you're probably the same person (6). I do not care anyway , again.
I can also easily prove with a simple simulation that there is no such thing as short term. When you play all you're doing is extending the long term, even if you just win once and leave. But I'd love to know your definition of short term. I wonder if you'll actually dare to describe it to us.
I do not have a *definition* for you , just told you before i play 100-200 spins (not continuosly) using
diferent methods , and when up + something , stop(i am not greed).
I have nothing more to talk with you about that, and from respect to Proofreaders let´s go each one
our directions with our beliefs. Closed.
Thanks guys :good:
Me and it appears Jish (thanks Jish) removed some posts here. Things were getting rather personal and offensive. Things have been looking nice and civil on the forum lately, so let's not spoil it now. Anyway, no need to comment further: just get back to it...
Quote from: Danger Man on March 17, 2010, 03:08:42 PM
Holy grail framework: ignore facts, just think positive.
Actually DangerMan IMO a good bettor
should ignore
some facts to pursue the ultimate goal of making consistant profits, yes. Thinking positive with good money management and self-discipline will ensure the casino will never take all of the bettors' money.
this sistem is interstin but cant see why any 18 numbers is better then red or black.
have some numbers magnetic attraction or magical powers?
:whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :'( :wub:
Ahem. I want to get back to the Eschec System. Here is a refresher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure: (A) RED Streets: 1,2,3: 7,8,9: 16,17,18: 19,20,21: 25,26,27: 34,35,36
(B) BLACK Strts: 4,5,6: 10,11,12: 13,14,15: 22,23,24: 28,29,30: 31,32,33
Look at past spin values' colors. If Black or Red is Dominant (Four or more of seven)
Play A or B respectively continuously with a 1,2,4,8,16 progression.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are a few modifications to the system.
Manaman method: Wait until either (A) or (B) loses twice (in a row) then bet losing letter continuously, going 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.
Manaman method B: This next way is from the same set of numbers but instead, start betting after a W and stop on a L (still going up 1 and down 1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky Strike's method: A,A,B *continuously* -or- B,B,A (depending on which color is dominant)
Kingspin's method: A,B,A,B...(continuously)
Iboba's "simple and profitable" method: Wait for A or B to miss 4 times, bet opposite 1,2,4,8,16 progression.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any suggestions on this system are welcome. :smile:
Lets see a contest between your original and mannamans spinoff version below. Need actuals data from somewhere to start contest from an unbiased member to post here, like a moderater. What say you dudes. :polling:
spinoff version
Forget the silly name ......It's a nice little spinoff which I've combined with the original and pretty sure it's close to the holy grail..... I won't give exact details on how I'm combining the two (not to the public anyway) but will share with close friends I've made here....
3,6,9 = RED
12,15,18= RED
21,24,27=RED
30,33,36=RED
2,5,8 =BLACK
11,14,17=BLACK
20,23,26=BLACK
29,32,35=BLACK
1,4,7 =RED
10,13,16=BLACK
19,22,25=RED
28,31,34=BLACK
To bet RED it's 12 units on Column [3.6.9.12.15.18.21.24.27.30.33.36] + 1 unit each on 1,4,7 and also 1 unit each on 19,22,25.
To bet BLACK it's 12 units on column [2.5.8.11.14.17.20.23.26.29.32.35] + 1 unit each on 10,13,16 and also 1 unit each on 28,31,34.
If you can bet in .5 then 6 units on a column + .5 on each will give a +9 Win and -9 Lose and I'm using 1.5 unit bets for the orignal which makes it +9 -9 also
I still don't understand how one set of 18 numbers can show up more often than another set of 18 numbers. Can somebody explain how it could be possible? If its true, it completely turns roulette upside down. But how can it be true?
It isn't true, it's lack of understanding and experience that allows people to believe otherwise. Any pair of ECs is exactly the same as any other, wheel based or table based. The spreadsheet I wrote to demonstrate this was never approved in the downloads section after three days of waiting so I took it down. I'll upload it to a file sharing site tomorrow and you can do your own analysis. Or if someone wants to attach here 10,000 Euro wheel numbers in a .txt I'll put them into the spreadsheet and post results.
Short term (50-100 spins, one set of eighteen numbers, maybe not all eighteen, but a few may hit a lot more than the general average. That's where the money is IMO. It is believed that all numbers will eventually even out over millions of spins.
Check out Kim Larsen and the Chaos Theory.
>>one set of eighteen numbers, maybe not all eighteen, but a few may hit a lot more than the general average.>>
Or not. Thats rather the point, I think.
In that case let's agree to disagree.
All I can say is, if you can prove that one set of 18 numbers hits more often than another set of 18 numbers, you will have made a discovery that has eluded experts and modern computers forever. You will be richer than Bill Gates.
...and banned from every casino in the world. :o
nolinks://rapidshare.com/files/365850723/Analysis.xlsx.html (nolinks://rapidshare.com/files/365850723/Analysis.xlsx.html)
nolinks://rapidshare.com/files/365852852/Analysis.xlsx.html (nolinks://rapidshare.com/files/365852852/Analysis.xlsx.html)
Paste your own numbers in the orange column. See the foot of the spreadsheet for counts.
Danger Man, just because you post proof doesn't mean anybody will believe it. You must think we're all gullible here.
I wanted to add a modified Fender's method
Procedure: (A) RED Streets: 1,2,3: 7,8,9: 16,17,18: 19,20,21: 25,26,27: 34,35,36
(B) BLACK Strts: 4,5,6: 10,11,12: 13,14,15: 22,23,24: 28,29,30: 31,32,33
When A or B misses five times in a row, bet the opposite with a 1,2,3 progression
Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on March 22, 2010, 07:21:20 AM
I wanted to add a modified Fender's method
Procedure: (A) RED Streets: 1,2,3: 7,8,9: 16,17,18: 19,20,21: 25,26,27: 34,35,36
(B) BLACK Strts: 4,5,6: 10,11,12: 13,14,15: 22,23,24: 28,29,30: 31,32,33
When A or B misses five times in a row, bet the opposite with a 1,2,3 progression
proofreaders2000 Have you got roulette xtreme ??
I prefer to test by hand.
Procedure: (A) RED Streets: 1,2,3: 7,8,9: 16,17,18: 19,20,21: 25,26,27: 34,35,36
(B) BLACK Strts: 4,5,6: 10,11,12: 13,14,15: 22,23,24: 28,29,30: 31,32,33
..............................................................................
TRIGGER TO START BETS.
-W,W,W
END BET SIGN.
L,L,L
L,L,W,L,L
...............................................
ATTACKS.....
W=14
L=7
W=11
L=9
W=12
L=8
W=9
L=5
W=3
L=4
W=9
L=6
W=8
L=6
W=4
L=4
W=3
L=3
.....................................
160 spins
+126units betting on 6 streets
MATTJONO
Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on March 22, 2010, 08:28:46 PM
I prefer to test by hand.
as you can see i do plenty of testing by hand on live actual spins. takes more work and time but......these no but get to the casino and get some balls........yes thats me telling myself to :-X
mattjono