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.