Thanks for your interest. It has been a long haul and we're looking forward to tomorrow, National Pi Day.
Thank you all for hanging in there. Last fall, I had an extended private email conversation with a fan, "Student 1," that was both far reaching and very specific. His dedication and enthusiasm is demonstrated with the programs he prepared for the Forum, one of which I am passing on with the subscription. His questions were equally penetrating and was instructive to me as to what I can expect in the Forum. As well, how to formulate an appropriate answer. This student also obtained 10,000 roulette outcomes from "Dublin." the data was supposedly from a live dealer using a 37 pocket wheel. When he ran it through his roulette program, he was disappointed that the predicted advantage, after the house edge, was only 48 units. There may also have been an error in his program or calculation and the advantage very slightly higher.
The answer to his question would be clearer with a complete picture of all 37 pockets over 10,000 trials, but that was not available. Nor was there any further information as to the game protocol or dealer's release criteria.
To him, the modified gravity bet didn't work because it didn't deliver the predicted .08333 flat bet advantage.
Yet, his efforts appear to prove the modified gravity bet. The bare fact that a specific relative pocket can be predicted to flat bet deliver an advantage, over the house edge, over 10,000 trials, is significant.
To me, modified gravity bet worked. The fact that there was any predictable advantage at all, complete with formula, over ten thousand trials, says it works. In my experience, the reason the advantage wasn't higher was due to something in the dealer's release and/or casino protocol.
It appears to be a matter of the glass being half full or half empty. If one is just looking at the bottom line return, it is half empty. If one is looking at the theory and how to understand and improve it, the glass is definitely half full.
To clarify where I am coming from, my interest is in developing the theory and the Forum is a resurrection of the great debate of 1776, without the political, religious and financial considerations.
In that debate, it was claimed that traditional random game theory could predict the randomness of the universe more accurately than "action at a distance." It also claimed "action at a distance" was useless. Traditional random theory was proven wrong, but allowed to appear to win on a technicality. Action at a distance was set up to appear as losing the debate. Action at a distance was then lost to history until its reappearance in Quantum Mechanics.
The falseness of that debate is the academic foundation of modern random theory. If the truth of that debate had been allowed to stand, our modern gaming and banking and insurance industries could never have evolved.
The Forum reopens the debate. The Roman Catholic Church banned "actio in distans." In the debate, Simon Laplace accused Rudjer Boskovic, a priest, of using "action at a distance" to predict the orbit of comets. Laplace claimed the apparent .08333 flat bet advantage of "action at a distance" over traditional random game theory was "illusory." Laplace was proven wrong ...but Boskovic was a priest who couldn't defend properly.
Albert Einstein sided with Laplace. Einstein called it, "spooky."
Quantum Mechanics and Bell's Theorem call it right ...and get a .08333 advantage.
I call it the gravity bet. Its real and hard core.
Consideration of all of this took me away from the site for six months and back into my data bases. In the meantime, I have continued to collect new data bases.
The seed theory of randomness is sprouting triplets. They are in the form of three simultaneous overlapping relative probabilities as the three pole structure of the prediction or "bet" matches the three pole geometric structure of a game object's pi-angle. Over three measurements, each is a 1/3 third probability (until direction is factored). The gravity bet (the original Needle extended with "action at a distance" factored by two directions) appears to enthusiastically embrace and germinate seed theory. This wonder phenomenon will be statistically explored in the Forum.
The question of how to beat roulette is a loaded question. The answer has several parts and conditions. Firstly, which roulette?
American and European roulette are entirely different games. The appearance of similarity is just that ...only a superficial appearance.
The question of how to beat roulette is actually a question of relativity.
Assuming a random release, American roulette is, in the first instance, relative to the geometric probability of gravity.
With a European regulated release, the game is, in the first instance, relative to the quadratic geometry of the "game" and life's perception of a game.
Each relativity is found through the geometric probability of the original Needle ...but the original Needle is a translating mathematical language with two sides. One side is relative to gravity through its random value of relative 1/4 pi, relative to gravity's straight line pull on an object's (wheel's) pi-angle. The other side is meaninglessly relative to the quadratic value of 1/4 C, meaninglessly relative to the circle of the "game."
American roulette (with a dealer's random release) is relative to the three poles of gravity's pi-angle or "diameter."
European roulette (with a dealer's regulated release) is relative to the four quadratic poles of the game's "circle."
A geometric player using "action at a distance" will find a flat bet advantage at both games but the advantage --and how to geometrically find it-- is different for each.
American roulette with a dealer's random release is the only random table game that is random relative to gravity. All other table games are relative to the "game" in the first instance ...and require a deeper finesse. We will soon be discussing the deeper finesse. However, it can only be --and must be-- understood relative to the only true randomness of gaming. That is: American roulette with a dealer's random release of the ball.
It appears that different wheels may be fundamentally oriented at different poles of a pi-angle at different times. This appears to occur from an overriding geometric sequence that is so large that at any given time, one wheel is averagely oriented at a pi-angle pole while another is averagely oriented at the Center of Rotation. Therefore, the practical approach appears to be: short sessions at several different wheels.
At American roulette (eternal caveat: with a dealer's random release) a geometric player would want to either quit after the first win or be prepared to play many more, perhaps even hundreds of spins. The Pi-odds Roulette Study and Roulette Statistics both suggest that 1,728 (one thousand seven hundred twenty eight) or a number roughly approximate thereto, is the necessary number of spins required for the averages to theoretically mathematically flesh out.
That is: the three poles of a pi-angle multiplied by the four poles of a circle, multiplied by itself three times (once for each of the pi-angle's three poles).
While a flat bet advantage my occur quickly, these are long term averages. While the Center of Rotation (that is: the middle pole of a pi-angle) is finessed through and not counted ...it still must be allowed to occur.
European roulette appears to deliver a flat bet advantage quicker. Indeed, all other table games are wrapped around the deeper finesse and modified geometry as exemplified by European roulette, but we will first be exploring the more fundamental underlying relativity of gravity. That is: American roulette with a dealer's random release of the ball. See Cracking Roulette in Exploring Randomness.
Dear Friends and members,
It has been a long weekend, and the web developer has yet to get me up to speed on how to use and moderate the forum. It will be soon. In the meantime, this blog will be a substitute.
For the next couple of weeks, I'll ask members to start building a data base of cards. That is, use a single well shuffled deck and deal out all 52.
My own card data base is formatted in four rows with 13 cards each. This deal was repeated 52 times. Each deal was, of course, well shuffled. That is: a 52 card deck was dealt out 52 times. We will be working with my data base as a start.
The member's card data base will be a critical comparison. I get a .10 advantage without "counting." Of more interest, I get a .50 advantage "counting" geometric relationships. This counting is much easier than traditional card counting.
We will not be starting cards yet. That will be in another couple of weeks but I would like to have the card database and comparative database ready since they may reflect the seed concept of roulette ...and it is problematic we will crack that seed at this early stage. But we will try.
The seed concept (the entire gravity bet) is wrapped in the relativity in pi. The problem with pi is that it ihas the base of the decimal system when it should apparently be in another base. More particularly, a base of 3 or 5 or 7 or 9 or 11 or even 81. In short, something other than a decimal or quadratic system.
Those calculations will be complicated by the need to check the relativity between 1/4 pi and 1/6 pi, whatever base is appropriate.
While roulette with a dealer's random release is the foundation from which the flat bet advantage springs, the complication of grasping the seed may be partly clarified by our grasp of cards.
The problem of grasping the seed of roulette is complicated by the limited data base. From my experience and to my knowledge, there are no other completely random data bases available on the market. The statistics from European and Asian roulette wheels, wherein a dealer's release of the ball is regulated over the last successful pocket ...are not relative to the random geometry of gravity in the first instance. They are filtered through the rules of the "game." That is, the regulated release is not random ...and while it gives a modified similar result, it is at a different point in the pi-angle and found with a different geometry relative to the "game."
The statistics from American roulette wheels is contaminated if a dealer starts to "mix up" his release by "throwing by quadrants" or "running the wheel" by intentionally releasing over a particular pocket. In either case, randomness relative to gravity is also destroyed. While a flat bet advantage is still found with a dealer mixing it up by throwing (releasing the ball) from or relative to the green house pockets, it is also found at a different point along the wheel's pi-angle with a deeper finesse and with a different geometry. This also holds true for RNGs. When a dealer intentional releases over his own selected pocket, the randomness simply disappears.
All of this is complicated by the fact that when a wheel is reversed with each spin (as is usual in Europe) ...the flat bet advantage is apparently doubled.
It is mind numbing to discover that (to date) the only available random roulette numbers are in this forum. Members are encouraged to copy these statistics and work with them.
Here is an interesting concept/question. Since Quantum Mechanics and the gravity bet prove that an apparent past event geometrically controls a future event (this is "action at a distance) ...how far back does the spooky influence go?
Is the geometric orientation of a roulette wheel permanently established the first time it is tested off the assembly line? Is it forever oriented at either a pi-angle (diameter) end pole or the Center of Rotation?
Both the Pi-odds Roulette Study and the comparative Statistiks database offer support for this. With very close approximation, half the sessions deliver a flat bet advantage... and half only do what is expected (perform as the Center of Rotation) under traditional random theory...!?
The alternative to this unusual concept will be using these databases to discover a yet deeper repetitive geometry. I am working on this and welcome the efforts of others.
This will be successful if, for example, a split analysis of each session reveals a tendency to reverse the advantage. That is: those sessions that now deliver an advantage ...will split into advantage/no advantage. While, those that now do not ...will similarly split into no advantage/advantage. This is complicated by the fact that data from other random roulette wheels is, by all appearances, simply not available.
This is also complicated by the fact that the repetitive geometry being sought may require a longer string of outcomes than are available.
The answer will also be found in pi ...but there again ...is the decimal system practical and usable for this purpose?
Cards may provide the answer.
GLASSMAN, you wrote an interesting program. If TRICKYMOON will deal out the cards, your program should be able to handle it for comparison.The program will need to set up and answer: given this card ...compare with two other cards yet to be dealt.
This starts the Forum on two fronts: 1) continuing to work on pi and roulette 2) prepare the database to work with cards.
Our work with cards should lead back to the more basic questions of roulette, randomness and relativity ...while also setting up the work to develop strategies for poker and other card games.
Using cards is also not relative to the randomness of gravity in the first instance. However, the technique of the geometric variation is the same for European and Asian roulette ...and RNGs.
The databases are in place and the forum is ready. Since this weekend is a long holiday in America (Monday is Labor Day) and I have a prior commitment, we'll formally start the forum on Tuesday. Please be encouraged to review the material in the history section and "Exploring Random."
The key concept is relativity. When "action at a distance" is used (that is: the geometric finesse) the relative pi-angle pole, relative to the pi-angle base (ex: North relative to South) the statistical proof is that only the straight line of gravity (a pi-angle or "diameter") is rotating and being randomly measured. A randomly measured straight line has only three poles: one end (any random gaming outcome as the pi-angle base in the first of a series) the Center of Rotation (the second random gaming outcome in the series) and the relative pi-angle pole (the third outcome of the series.)
The geometric finesse takes the second outcome but eliminates it from consideration or "prediction" or bet.
The flat bet advantage is predicting the third outcome to be the third pole of the pi-angle. Since there are only three poles to gravity's pull, the third pole is a .33333 geometric probability. Since the event is in a series of random measurements, there is in effect a "rotation."
The rotation of a straight line offers only two possible directions. That cuts the geometric probability in half. That is: .16666 .
Since traditional random game theory doesn't recognize geometric probability, it always expects and pays off a relative pi-angle pole as though it was a "relative" Cardinal pole with a .25 possibility. That renders "relativity" meaningless.
The gravity bet simply predicts 1/6 of the wheel as a relative pi-angle pole. In the long run, as a successful roulette pocket occurs in the relative pi-angle pole, the .16666 advantage gradually builds up ans statistically emerges.
If the geometric finesse is not used, the player will be predicting or betting the second event of a series. That effectively bets the Center of Rotation.That ends the flat bet advantage.
The original Needle deductively proves the Center of Rotation to simply be pi. The original Needle also proves the circle to be pi. The original Needle also proves a circle to be comprised of four quadrants of relative 1/4 pi each, relative to the pi-angle (or diameter). The original needle also proves the relative cross-diameter of a randomly measured circle to be pi.
The original Needle also inferentially proves the Center of Rotation of a pi-angle (or "diameter" as distinguished from the cross-diameter) to have a random value: .50 . This is only statistically proven IF IT IS MEASURED WITH THE GEOMETRIC FINESSE OF "ACTION AT A DISTANCE."
If a diameter (or "pi-angle") is not measured or finessed through with "action at a distance," then it will statistically reveal the Center of Rotation to have a value that only has meaning relative to the "game." That is: pi or 1/2 pi or so many inches from the circle or whatever. Its relativity is gravitationally meaningless.
This is the heart of the inexplicable refrain from Quantum Mechanics: measuring something fundamentally changes its nature. The statement is true ....but only if it is measured with the geometric finesse.
Without the finesse, its all just so much never changing pi (or so much never changing traditional random theory).
It is the relativity identified in the original Needle that counts. Every random event intrinsically and simultanenously holds three levels of relativity: 1) relative to gravity 2( relative to pi 3) relative to life's perception.
They are not mathematically equal. Only the geometric finesse makes the inequality clear.
The original Needle demonstrates its length of relative 1/4 pi as the translating language of gravity. It is relative to gravity as 1/4 pi. It is relative to life's perception as 1/4 C (so many inches or pockets or microns or miles).
All of these matters may only be directly statistically proven with the geometric finesse applied to the random "circular" orbit of a comet ...or the circular shape of a particle ...or the circle of a wheel (with a dealer's random release of the ball).
If the random measurement of the circle or wheel is made without a random release, (or from a random number generator) then that modification places the relativity back to the circle of the "game" in the first instance, before its relativity back to the pi-angle of gravity can be realized. Such a circumstance also reveals a flat bet advantage ...but it is different in time and place and geometric nature (although still precise and significant).
To grasp the most basic nature of the phenomenon of relativity, it is essential to start with a circle (wheel will do) and a purely random measurement (a live dealer's random release). We will be exploring this first before moving on to modified releases, cards and random number generators.
It is worth repeating: this study and site and book should never have been necessary. Sadly, to date, since 1776, this site is the only opportunity to set these random matters straight. The .16666 flat bet advantage of thr gravity bet only cracks the ice. While many members and guests are understandably eager to get into the wider ranges of gaming, we need to quickly put it all into the right perspective first by exploring the fuller scope of a randomly measured circle. Only then will the full scope of randomness and relativity --and gaming-- be found.
Look for the Pi-Odds Forum to open Tuesday, Sept. 6.