Eschec Even-Chances System

[Jish]

Manaman your post above was removed for using inappropriate language

[cheese]

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.

[Proofreaders2000]

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.

[Proofreaders2000]

"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.

[manaman]

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  

[manaman]

The only way this will lose is WLWLWLWLWLWL...  but if that happens you've been reading/believing too many negative facts   ............

[manaman]

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)

[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.

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.

[kattila]

*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.

[Jish]

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.

[Danger Man]

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.

[kattila]

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.

[cheese]

>>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.

[Danger Man]

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. 

[kattila]

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.

[kattila]

-