Written by G. T. Hushion. Posted in Articles

The site was recently lost by the server Host Gator, as well as the back up. What appears now is an older version that will be brought up to date. Lost as well were the intervening Blogs.

In January, 2013, over a period of approximately two weeks, I did some studies with a mathematician. However, he was unwilling or unable to work with the criterion he was given. He appeared to be a capable mathematician but was unfortunately ignorant about: geometric probability, the Buffon Needle Problem and Quantum Mechanics and its methodology of "action at a distance." He also did not appreciate the difference between a true random number generator and a pseudo random number generator, He also did not check the massive amount of gravity bet trials that were successful --every time-- in the real world of gaming statistics. Rather, he insisted that only his pseudo random number generator was valid. He believed that the massive number of my own experiments (into the hundreds of thousands) proving the flat bet advantage of the gravity bet and "action at a distance" were all just anomalies ...just statistical luck. Remarkably, he claimed that he, like Einstein, had disproved "action at a distance" or made it irrelevant. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. Action at a distance remains the vibrant methodology that is the virulent pulse of Quantum Mechanics and Bell's Theorem. Even Einstein admitted he was probably wrong. Recently, more and more legitimate scientists have also pointed out that Einstein was wrong. From his extensive emails, the mathematician is apparently quite unfamiliar with the history of Quantum science and Einstein's minimal involvement. He is also unable to program an appropriate algorithm of geometric probability. This may have been due to his pseudo RNG. Strangely, he continued to insist that a random number generator programmed as a roulette wheel could accurately duplicate the outcomes of a roulette wheel. I attempted to explain that what he was looking at and seeing was only the algebra. That is, any particular number will tend to appear equally with any and all other numbers. Sadly, he was unable to mentally grasp that a random number generator cannot duplicate the geometric probability of a physical wheel. That is, an RNG has its own geometric probability that is entirely apart and different from the geometric probability of a physical wheel.

Here is what the mathematician didn't do or was incapable of programming.

1) The gravity bet attempts to geometrically match the geometric probability of gravity's random nature and its measurement with "action at a distance." This requires an even prediction or "bet" of .16666 of the wheel or field. Since that is impossible on a 38 or 37 pocket wheel, either 7 pockets will include a series of losing pockets or betting only 5 pockets will exclude pockets of geometric probability that then become losing propositions. The result is that the gravity bet is only good for a short to medium series. It also means the full .16666 flat bet advantage will not be fully met. This is evidenced by the analysis of "Roulette Statistiks" and the "Pi- Odds Roulette Study." They are described in this site. Each delivered a flat bet advantage of only over .15 . This was not addressed by the mathematician.

2) For the above reasons, the gravity bet succeeds best with short trials before the built in losing propositions make significant advances. The mathematician was told that short term series were best, but he mainly concentrated on series that were millions long. When he finally did some series of 2,000 trials, he still ignored the evidence and criteria of the efficacy of a series of short trials totally approximately 2,000.

3) The gravity bet and its "action at a distance" turns every random series into a sine wave of geometric probability. He even admitted this in an email. The repeated random entries and short series of the gravity bet will almost equally touch the upper half of the sine wave (higher than normal random expectations) and the lower half (less than normal random expectations). The word "almost" is important here because in all trials the upper half occurs slightly more frequently. This is undoubtedly due to the geometric probability and flat bet advantage at the relative pi-angle pole. The sine wave phenomenon is evidenced by the tens of thousands of real life trials. These were ignored by the mathematician.

4) The mathematician ignored the thousands of successes --that never had a failure of the random flat bet advantage-- in not only the "Pi-Odds Roulette Study," but also in the books of roulette outcomes published by others, including: "Roulette Statistiks," "Roulette for the Millions" and "Roulette System Tester." As well, the roulette samples provided by the manager of Baden Baden Casino. As well, the thousands and thousands of successful trials from random number generators, including a study of ten thousand trials from Random.Org. According to the mathematician, these were all anomalies ...just luck. He clearly needs a refresher course in random statistics.

5) The statistical evidence suggests a long range circumstance of geometric probability within geometric probability within geometric probability, etc.. This was not addressed by the mathematician.

6) The mathematician was expressly told that a random exit appears as important as a random entry. This too was ignored. While the mathematician started each series with a seed, that is not at all necessarily a random entry after whatever seed was used.

The success of Bell's Theorem in predicting random particle spin with a .08333.... flat bet advantage and the repeated and repeated and repeated successes of the gravity bet, using the same methodology as Bell's Theorem, to find the same flat bet advantage in the spin of gaming, proves the mathematician to be wrong in his limited conclusions. Moreover, he admitted in an email that what we looking at was what I had been claiming for over a year: a sine wave!!


Yet, this mathematician could not come up with what it takes to work with the criterion he was given?! If the criterion isn't followed, it doesn't matter how many millions of trials are attempted, all that will result is the same old traditional random theory. 

This rewrite of Cracking Pi Cracking Random will provide yet another opportunity to clarify what should have been part of public education for the past two hundred years. The only matter about Quantum Mechanics and Bell's Theorem that is difficult is setting up and working with the machinery of a particle splitter and interpreting the results. It is the methodology, not the complexity of the experiment, that makes the magic of Quantum theory ...and that's as simple now as it was when Isaac Newton used it to predict the orbit of comets three hundred years ago. Its so simple, Koko the gorilla could probably learn it as fast or faster than a physicist. Here is how fundamentally simple it is: take three random measurements ...eliminate the middle measurement ...predict the third measurement to be relative opposing pole of the first. In a game or circumstance of pure randomness in a two dimensional game (NOT found with Random Number Generators) the relativity is predictably found at the relative pi-angle pole. In a three dimensional field such as the orbit of a comet, the relativity is found at a relative angle of 60 degrees. This is discussed in the text body of  Cracking Pi.This is the fundamental methodology of "action at a distance." The basic methodology may be expanded from here. The expansion includes a deeper finesse and often a minor shift of the relative pi-angle pole or a complete shift to the diameter base.

Cracking Pi applies the foundational bet to roulette with a dealer's random release of the ball. It is expanded to a deeper finesse with regulated and controlled roulette releases, random number generators and cards. The finesse is also specific to the game or algorithm that generates the random statistics.

Here is the list of relative cards that will demonstrate the gravity bet with card turnovers from microsoft's solitaire game. The fifth card off the top, relative to the first card, will tend to be one of the following for a single deck. This is geometric probability using "action at a distance." The methodology eliminates the "circle" of a suit and replaces it with the straight line pi-angle pull of gravity along the diameter of the suit or the diameter of any other randomly measured field. Adventuresome experimenters may find the same flat bet advantage throughout the RNG deck as well as with a real deck, not only off the top. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "card counting." This is the relativity of Quantum Mechanics. This is the relativity that eluded Einstein. As will be discussed in future Blogs, there are other relative card advantages as the deck depletes.

1st card -- 5th card

A---------4 or J

2----------5 or Q

3----------6 or K

4----------7 or A

5----------8 or 2

6----------9 or 3

7---------10 or 4

8-----------J or 5

9----------Q or 6

10---------K or 7

J-----------A or 8

Q----------2 or 9

K----------3 or 10.