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.