8/23/2011

Written by G. T. Hushion. Posted in Articles

Thank you for your patience. It will only be another two days before we're ready to start our quest for the deeper answers of geometric probability. If you are an analyst or mathematician, we will start by looking at roulette statistics and asking questions such as: if this, look for that.... If that, then this .... etc.

8/18/2011

Written by G. T. Hushion. Posted in Articles

The site has not bee advertised yet. I'll let the word out when it is cleaned up and the Forum ready to go. Since there is no prior history of this material, I have put it up so that early members can get a feel for the geometric finesse and help others when they come aboard. I can now only encourage members to go to the Roulette database and familiarize with the methodology.

Another week and we'll start cooking.

8/17/2011

Written by G. T. Hushion. Posted in Articles

The registration is now open and the Pi-odds Roulette Study is there with all 21 sessions available. The guide to special characters indicating which pockets of the relative pi-angle pole were successful is found at the top of Session One.

The material appears "down and dirty" and rough and ready, but the substance is all there. It will take a few more days to smooth it out. There are already several suggestions as to how to reformat and I will consider all of them, but would like to get more feedback from more people before proceeding (especially since I am still in an early learning stage as to administaing the site).

Until then, I'll continue using this blog to slog on.

The Study is, as mentioned throughout the site, a study of averages.  Ultimately, we will extract the deeper geometry that is simmering beneath the surface's.

For the next several days, please review the core of the material. The upper case characters may be used to identify where in the relative pi-angle pole the Coriolis is directing the Centrifugal force.

Keep in mind that when the finesse methodology of "action at a distance" is used, the ball did not land on a circle of 38 pockets ...it landed on the end of gravity's straight line of geometric probability.

The natural next question is the same question Einstein asked when he challenged the identical methodology of "action at a distance" in his EPR: what about everything else?

What about the other numbers that are finessed through?

The answer is the same philosophy that brings as back into the present confrontation with randomness. The "other pockets "and/or "everything else that isn't geometric probability" is (including our perception of a "game" ... relative to the randomness of gravity ...just a perception of so much relative pi in rotation.

To get to this mathematical point, it is only necessary to unblock one's mind and make the psychological leap that, relative to the randomness of gravity, we and our perceptions and "games" are the pi that is finessed through.

The original Needle randomly proved a circular game was just a series of events of relative 1/4 pi in rotation. When the original Needle is extended with "action at a distance," the meaninglessly relative diameter pole of 1/4 pi is meaningfully changed to relative 1/6 pi. The flat bet advantage is the difference. That is 1/4 pi - 1/6 pi = 1/12 pi. When this is made relative back to life's perceptions and two random directions are factored, the .16666 flat bet advantage appears. That is: 1/12 pi / 1/14 pi = .33333 . This divided by 2 directions = .16666 .

This phenomenon is only found on a roulette wheel (with a dealer's random release) at each third event.

That is: let the first ball land anywhere. Let the second ball land anywhere. Predict the third ball to be the relative pi-angle pole, relative to the first ball.

The pi-odds study overlaps each successive spin. The second ball of the first series of three becomes the first ball of the second series of three. In the third series of three, the third ball of the first series becomes the first ball of the third series. In the fourth series of three, the third ball of the second series becomes the first ball of the fourth series. In the fifth series of three, the third ball of the third series becomes the first ball of the fifth series ...etc..

The pi-odds study only scratches the surface. Since each random event is simultaneously a pi-angle base ...and a Center of Rotation ...and a relative pi-angle pole ...Einstein's question requires a deeper answer than merely relative pi in rotation. While that answer (and the flat bet advantage it inevitably leads to) will do relative to the game we perceive ...it invites and deserves a far more sophisticated answer (that will come with a significantly higher flat bet advantage).

Finder that deeper nature nature is the initial goal of this site. We can then ease into an examination of the pi-angle base ...then beyond into cards and random number generators.

I need to stress again that the intent of the site is not to "bring down the house." Rather it is to explore the geometric nature of randomness. Gaming is used for the perfect randomness it offers. Traditional game theory is also fairly challenged by its use by Simon Laplace in his "debate" with Boskovic wherein he claimed the randomness of gaming could predict the randomness of the universe.

There appears to be ways and means, within the algorithms of traditional random game theory, to protect against assault by the gravity bet. While the gaming industry could never have evolved if Laplace had been a straight shooter ...it is here now ...and has been for two centuries ...and hires a lot of people. Since the gaming industry also bills itself as an entertainment industry, it will only require relatively minor adjustments to its idea of randomness. To that end, this site is also intended to develop those algorithms to preserve the gaming industry and the millions of jobs it provides.

In the meantime, registrants are encouraged to start becoming familiar with the Pi-odds Roulette Study. It appears to hold the grail and the future.

8/16/2011

Written by G. T. Hushion. Posted in Articles

The full Pi-odds Roulette study should on line tomorrow. Readers are encouraged to review CRACKING ROULETTE.

The bottom line in assessing American roulette outcomes is to be cautious as to the reliability of any purported randomness. It is extremely easy for a dealer to give the house an extra edge. On a real casino wheel, I was able to drop the ball in a particular half of the wheel after only twenty minutes of practice. Since the numbers and colors and dozens and columns are not spread evenly, is that easy for a dealer to enhance or defeat a bet. Since some casinos will give preferential treatment and hours to dealers who make more money for the house, the incentive is there. After four years of unsuccessfully wrestling with books, I came to the conclusion that if I wanted random roulette outcomes, I needed to go to Las Vegas and get them myself by checking each dealer for randomness before recording the outcomes. This is the Pi-odds Roulette study.

As well, it must be considered that many dealers at American roulette have been trained in Europe or Asia. Since there is no requirement as to an American dealer's release, there is no assurance the release is random.

Additionally, A pi boss will instruct a dealer to "mix it up." This means the dealer is to vary his release. This too has a deleterious effect on randomness.

Further, dealers trained in American dealer schools are generally taught to throw by quadrants. The quadrants are generally defined by the two green house numbers and the pockets forming a right angle to them (around pockets 5 and 6).

While there is no requirement that dealers release by quadrants, it is the heart of the occasional instruction to "mix them up."

While most American dealers release randomly ...any of the above will defeat randomness.

Moreover, if a book of roulette outcomes is of or from one casino, and there is a dealer using other than a random release, the randomness of the entire book may be contaminated.

For this reason, European and Asian roulette outcomes are more reliable, but again there are issues to be considered first. Is the wheel reversed after each outcome? What is the precise protocol for the dealer? is it actually over the last number? The other side of the wheel? How much latitude is the dealer given? Is the ball to be left in the last successful pocket until a new trial is started, wherein by protocol, the ball is lifetd just out of the pocket enough to release it? May the dealer lift the ball from the pocket before hand, waiting for the last bet and then generally "sort of" release it in the general area of the last pocket?

All of these factors need to be considered in testing the geometric probability of "action at a distance."

The European release also requires a deeper finesse and a fundamental change in the geometry of the prediction. That change will be the next topic after the randomness of  American Roulette. It also sets up the study of Random Number Generators to follow.

8/15/2011

Written by G. T. Hushion. Posted in Articles

Good Morning,

The sign in page and the full 21 sessions of the Pi-odds roulette Study should be up today.

The study took place over a two year period. Only dealers in major casinos were recorded. Each dealer was carefully observed first to assure a random release was used. When dealers rotated breaks and shifts, the replacement dealer was also checked for randomness while play continued. There was only one instance where a replacement dealer appeared to be throwing with other than a random release. Thereupon, recording was stopped.

The intent of the study was to duplicate the average player's experience. Some people quit when they simply feel like it, some when they run out of chips, some when discouraged, and some after a win. I used each of these exits as I naturally felt. Only the last two sessions were ended with a predetermined exit plan: to leave after the first win.

A question has been raised as to how and why I was able to do this when so many others, including Albert Einstein, have tried and failed. There is a two part answer.

Firstly, most others, especially in the academic community, have had to keeping working on side issues which prevent full time long term concentration on a single matter. These issues include earning a living, finding and/or maintaining tenure, teaching, research, publishing, grant limitations, etc.. While the Cracking pi matters are not complicated, they simply do not exist in the educational community (for all the reasons discussed in the History section). In short, in these circumstances, sorting out the bird seed has taken time that I was fortunate enough to have.

Secondly, my learning disability is not a disability in my eyes. It just takes me a little longer to grasp some new things. It is actually an asset that forces me to work harder. While I am reasonably intelligent, this material was not developed by the scrambled eggs in my cranium. It came solely from hard work and the grateful opportunity to do it.