Author Topic: What if...  (Read 15681 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
What if...
« on: May 14, 2015, 11:22:59 PM »
Humanity has made great progress through the centuries,yet again human nature remains a mystery.
Even with all the technological advance we cannot understand completely the metaphysical part of our lives (if any)
Religion rejects scientific theories and vice versa,this is a circular argument and leads to a dead end.
Religion is based on faith without proof,science is based on evidence,therefore two contradicting approaches.
When you expect evidence in order to believe then this is not faith and when you believe without being able to prove what you believe is not science.
However,personally I believe there is common element which unifies the two opposite approaches,in other words they are striving to reach the same end by different paths.
I believe that metaphysical and physical cosmos could be one unified truth which emerges when we embrace the light.
The light which shows us our path through cosmos,the light of knowledge,the light of truth.
There are many things in our world and lives which cannot be understood with our limited perception.
Evolution is a constant work in progress,thus I strongly believe we should keep an open mind in order to be open to change and progress at all levels.
Science has been able to discover too many things, things which have been unimagined by people a few centuries before.
Yet again human nature has not been changed...
They have found the speed of celestial bodies,the distance and age of galaxies,stars,planets...etc
Yet again they cannot find where the little white ball is going to rest on the next spin!
Just imagine the moon as the rotating white ball and earth as the rotor of the wheel which is rotating around its axis,science knows the exact orbit and speed of those celestial spheres,therefore they can predict with certainty and accuracy where the moon will be after a day,a week,a month...etc
Let me give you a few clues,the rotation of the moon around earth is on the same direction like the spin of the earth around its axis.
For a complete rotation around its axis needs 23.97 hours,while the moon needs 27.23 days for a full revolution around the earth.
Do you remember PI theorem?
Let me refresh your memory, the circumference of any given circle when it's divided by its diameter it always results 3.14
A sphere like the moon or a ball is a three dimensional circle,also the rotation,spinning is a cyclic movement.
You could notice everywhere this cyclic patterns,from spiral galaxies,tornados,typhoons,planet orbits,to life cycle,money cycle,epidemies,seasons cycle,hands of clock clockwise and counter clockwise circles(time) and so on.
At ancient Greece there was a symbol among others which have been crafted in a magnificent ring,they call it "Ourovoros Ophis",literally means the serpent which bites its tail,this form represents the cycle,a symbol which means the one without end,nor beginning,the infinite,the eternal,the endless.
Why do you think a circle has 360 degrees and a year 365 days? Do you think is a coincidence?
If you cannot connect the clues so far,then you wouldn't be able to go further because this is the fundamental understanding of how things work.
Roulette wheel/game is no exception of the Universal laws,a wheel is a circle,with the absence of number 0,would have been 36 numbers on the wheel's layout,thus 36 numbers of 10 degrees each in order to convert to the 360 degrees cycle.
But like on the annual cycle which has been added 5 days and comes to balance with a leap year every 4 years,something similar happened with roulette's layout,it has been added one more pocket,therefore 37 pockets around the wheel.
This change is trivial and can not influence in a meaningful way the Universal law,roulette is no exception to this rule.
There are circles within circles and all of them are PI proportions,if you divide the wheel's layout in 4 sections by forming a cross you will get 4 groups of 9,let's forget for a moment the 0.
If a quarter of the wheel is 9 numbers then this section is 90 degrees or 1/4 of PI.
Orthogonal triangles have 90 degrees,its straight angle points toward a direction.
Each section of the wheel forms a different geometric figure,it's always a proportion of the total degrees.
Every new result is a new data stream towards us,consider it us a point in time and space.
Try to transform the curvy section in a linear distance,do the same for three consecutive points.
Deduct the difference between them and apply it on the next spin.
But you have to remember that the direction will be the reversed opposite of the previous one.
When you combine the PI=3.14 and FI=1.618 you come to Golden Ratio or Golden Proportion,multiply them and divide them to see the result.
When you multiply them you find a figure very near 5,when you divide them you find approximately 2.
5 and 2 are the two opposite ends of the same "rope",out of 3 points we calculate a new direction in space,over the pinpoint pocket/number,cover its left and right neighbours for a total of 3 selections,bet them only twice.
Then repeat the process again and again,never raise your bet,always bet the same.
What I've tried to explain here can also be proved be science,just read wikipedia article about "action in distance" Bell's theorem,Bell's curve...etc
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 11:31:10 PM by BlueAngel »


Re: What if...
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2015, 10:41:03 AM »
Yes, but what's your point?


  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: What if...
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2015, 06:10:17 PM »
"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.
Also he is 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."

Search on Google: geometric probability, the Buffon Needle Problem, Quantum Mechanics and its methodology of "action at a distance."


  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: What if...
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2015, 06:36:31 PM »
"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.
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.
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."


  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: What if...
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2015, 06:42:02 PM »
"Lets go over the 4 pocket roulette wheel.

The 4 pocket wheel is both the perfect theoretical model for geometric probability ...and the worst practical model.
By the proof of the original Needle, the average distance between one random measurement and the next is 1/4 of the distance around the wheel or "game" or field.
It is only an algebraic average, but it is universal. With a random release of the ball, this makes a 4 pocket wheel the ideal model to explain geometric probability. Each pocket is a Cardinal pole with 90 degrees of arc.

On the other hand, geometric probability is intrinsically a factor of so many degrees of arc.
Specifically, the relative pi-angle pole ("spin up" in Quantum theory) is only found with "action at a distance" ...and has 60 degrees of arc.

If a roulette wheel had 100 pockets, each Cardinal pole would be 25 pockets.
If "action at a distance" is used the geometric probability of a relative pi-angle pole could be found by predicting or by betting the 16 pockets that comprise the relative pi-angle pole of a 100 pocket wheel.
That is, predicting an random occurrence will occur within an arc of .16666 of the wheel or circle or game or field.

That is not possible with a 4 pocket wheel.
It is also not possible to bet only .16666 of a pocket that itself consists of .25 percent of the wheel.
Another way to look at it is that the frets of a 4 pocket wheel force a ball back into a Cardinal pocket when in fact the ball's natural force and momentum would have taken it into the next Cardinal pole.

With 100 pockets, it doesn't really matter if a fret stops a ball's forward momentum so that it falls back into the last pocket.
The pi-angle pole itself has 16 pockets any one of which delivers the flat bet advantage.

With 4 pockets, it very much matters.

The relative pi-angle pole is the opposite pocket where the ball naturally landed last. With a 4 pocket wheel, the ball has no opportunity to come to a natural rest by the difference between 90 degrees and 60 degrees of arc.
The pi-angle pole simply cannot be predicted as a "pocket" of 60 degrees of arc, when the 60 degrees of arc is swallowed up by the 90 degrees of arc of a Cardinal pole of a 4 pocket wheel.

These differences are critical in visualizing the geometric truth to be found with "action at a distance."


  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: What if...
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2015, 06:57:59 PM »

Written by G. T. Hushion

"CRACKING PI CRACKING RANDOM is generally directed to college undergraduates and is intended to challenge the academic community.
Absent roulette wheels, random number generators may be used.
As well students and professors may now challenge each other to a game of "guess the next card" and enjoy a hitherto unheard of geometric advantage.

The gravity bet is focussed on risk management.
Random table gaming is used as a model. It puts the flat bet advantage of Quantum Mechanics and Bell's Theorem into the hands of everyman and appears applicable across the board to every random series, including the stock market, which has also been successfully tested.

G. T. Hushion is a research attorney and amateur forensic historian. He has invested over 20 years and well over thirty thousand hours researching and writing CRACKING PI CRACKING RANDOM.
He has no interest in gambling other than these scientific circumstances.

In 2004, the Statistical Laboratory at University California Santa Barbara tested him with 100 flips of a coin. He successfully predicted and found a precise .04166…. flat bet advantage.

The experiment was repeated with 100 “coin flips” from a random number generator and he again successfully predicted and found a precise .04166 flat bet advantage.

The experiment was soon repeated with a coin and a reporter.
The coins broke dead even despite the prediction. This itself appears to match the geometry of the prediction (two of three poles of a pi-angle) and a balloon theory of geometric probability within geometric probability within geometric probability, etc..

Considerable research obviously awaits this phenomenon.

On March 14, 2006, the Buffalo Evening News published an article in which their reporter tested him with a random number generator. He successfully predicted the precise random outcomes of electronic card turnovers with a .16666 flat-bet advantage.

The heart of these matters rests in pi. Not in the algebra of pi we have all been taught ...but in the pi to be found within two methodologies of geometric probability that originated with Isaac Newton in the 17th Century.
The first was "action at a distance." It is a natural extension of the second methodology which would lead to the original Buffon Needle Problem.
Newton's work was banned by the Roman Catholic Church. In the 18th Century, in response to the ban, a covert study was undertaken at the Paris Academy of Sciences.
That study was concealed in a massive academic fraud that led directly to the French Revolution's Terror.
In the Terror and the academic fallout that ensued, both methodologies were lost.

Action at a distance was not recovered until the 20th Century. It is the pulse of Quantum Mechanics and Bell's Theorem.
The original Needle Problem has never recovered until Cracking Pi.

When the original Needle is factored by two directions and extended with "action at a distance," the result is the "garvity bet."

The gravity bet delivers a .16666.... flat bet mathematical advantage over traditional random expectations.

The flat bet advantage is also found in the relativity between the digits of pi's geometric divisions.
Significantly, it now appears all random series are simply another expression of that relativity.

Prior to law school, G.T Hushion was an investigative reporter with a special interest in the administration of California’s tidelands."


  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: What if...
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2015, 07:06:47 PM »


Wheels and circles and games have four poles and no memory.
Relative to gravity, they only exist as algebra in our perceptions.

Diameters (or "pi-angles") have three poles.
They do not need a memory.
Relative to gravity, they have a gravitationally real structure of geometric probability.

These random matters concern the different geometric realities between the two fundamental dimensions: gravity's straight line pull on the diameter dimension (or “length”) of a circle or game or field ...and life's perception of a relative cross-diameter dimension (relative “width”).

The fundamental dimensions appear equal ...but it is only an appearance.
A circle or any other "shape" appears to have two dimensions of length and width. However, gravity doesn't recognize "shapes."
Relative to gravity, the "shape" of a circle or game or field is only an appearance unique to life's perceptions.

When an apparent multidimensional object is measured randomly with the geometric finesse in "action at a distance," there is a fundamental dimensional change.

By the proof of the original Needle, only one dimension is physically real and rotating. It is the diameter or, more accurately, a "pi-angle."

The problem for the world of contemporary science is not that science has yet to discover and solve the difficult complexities of the universe and its dimensions.
The problem is that we are the problem.
We and our perceptions and experiments and measurements are the greatest complexity.
The real problem is threshold: how to eliminate ourselves and our perceptions from our experiments.

The solution is the methodology of the geometric finesse.
The mechanics of the finesse are exactly like the mechanics of the common finesse in the card game of Bridge.
The geometric finesse is the heart of "action at a distance."
This methodology statistically changes the apparent "shape" of whatever it is used to randomly measure.
It statistically expresses the geometry of a diameter rather than the algebra of a circle or wheel or game or list or any other shape.

As also discussed below, experimenting gravity and the geometric finesse could, until fairly recently, get the user excommunicated.
Only four centuries ago, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for supporting the ideas and gravitational theories of Copernicus.
After Newton came up with "action at a distance," the church suppressed the concept and banned his books.

Traditional random theory accurately states the “wheel has no memory.”
However, it is only accurate because, relative to randomness and gravity, “wheels” and other “shapes” do not randomly or gravitationally exist in the first instance of randomness.
They only exist statistically relative to life’s perceptions and random measurements. This was the proof, by deduction and inference, of the original Needle.

The unit of measurement of the original Needle is its length.
It is the universal random average: relative 1/4 pi, relative to the diameter.

Relative to the randomness of gravity, only a diameter dimension is physically real. More accurately, its reality is found as probability.
By the mathematical proof of the original Needle, gravity expresses its geometric probability through the single dimension of a diameter.

Through the original Needle, gravity randomly values itself: "1."

Simultaneously, the deductions and inferences of the original Needle randomly value the relative cross-diameter dimension as just relative pi in rotation ...just a mathematical average ...just a perception expressed by the algebraic possibilities of a circle or "game" ...or pi.

In the first instance, the net pull of gravity is on, and/or along or from, an object’s diameter.

When a circle or game or field or object is randomly measured ...all that is physically “rotating” in the first instance, relative to the random event, are the geometric probability poles of the object’s diameter.
This was the deductive theory of the original Needle.
The proof came with the original Needle's extension with "action at a distance". 

The original Needle used relative 1/4 pi to prove that, relative to a "game" or circle, "pi" was just an algebraic expression of relative 1/4 pi multiplied by 4 ...and so was a circle ...and so too was a "wheel" or "game" or any other randomly measured field.

The deeper geometric significance of pi is found in its prominence as the COR of a rotating diameter (any random table game or other randomly measured field).
The threshold significance of pi is that it has a dual nature depending on how and whether its random nature as the COR is counted.

A series of random measurements will statistically display a circle or "wheel" if each random outcome (which automatically includes the COR) is counted or measured or predicted. This is traditional random theory. This is Monte Carlo methodology.
The COR is simply "counted," or allowed to averagely randomly appear twice in a series of four random measurements: once for each end pole.
This gives the random statistical appearance of four Cardinal poles (NSEW).
This is how a 3 pole diameter of geometric probability statistically appears as the quadrature of a 4 pole circle.
This is the proof of the original Needle (without an extension with "action at a distance").
This is the foundation of traditional random theory.

The result of the geometric finesse is paradoxical and defies all traditional random theory.
The COR statistically displays itself, by default, as a diameter pole.
This can only occur if the COR (or the second random event in a series of three) is finessed through and not counted or measured!
Otherwise, the COR ...and pi ...appears two poles and as a circle. Why...?...because by taking four measurements (quadrature) on a three pole diameter, the COR necessarily averagely appears twice. Geometrically, that gives the statistical appearance of four equal poles: South, COR, North, COR.
That gives the statistical appearance of an unpredictable circle of four equal poles. South, West, North and East.

The simple finesse methodology eliminates the "middle" of three random measurements or cards played.
This eliminates the algebraic dual nature of the COR.
The dual nature is that the COR is .50 diameter ...while simultaneously is both 1/4 pi, 1/2 pi and pi (depending on perception) relative to the cross diameter.
Getting rid of a randomly measured object's COR is the geometric methodology of "action at a distance."

Diameters do not need a memory.
Geometrically, when measured randomly with the gravity bet (or the "action at a distance" of Boskovic's methodology for predicting the orbits of comets ...or the "action at a distance" of the Quantum sciences for predicting random particle spin) ...all randomly measured diameters statistically display a gravitational structure of three probability poles: one end, the Center of Rotation (as a single pole), the "other end."

In the first instance, physically, relative to the random measurement itself, with all series of random measurements that are made with the methodology of a geometric finesse, the statistical proof appears clear.
All that is rotating in a series of random measurements is the geometric probability of a single dimension. It is a diameter or "pi-angle" of three poles ...not the algebraic possibilities of a circle or wheel with two dimensions and four poles.

In the first instance of randomness, relative to randomness and/or gravity, every random roulette ball, and every turn of a randomly shuffled card, are random geometric events on a diameter... whether of a circle or suit.

Geometrically, the algebra and traditional "odds" of a "wheel" or "circle" is the "game." It is a far distant second rate event compared to the random geometric probability of the diameter.

The geometry of a diameter doesn't need a memory.
It has a physically real structure of a single dimension and three poles.

Inherent in a diameter's random geometry is the simple, fundamental, flat-bet advantage of .16666 .
In a series of three random events, it is the difference between the third event being a pi-angle pole of geometric probability on a diameter of three poles ...and a Cardinal pole on a circle of four Cardinal poles.

The geometric finesse delivers the third pole on a diameter of three poles ...which traditional random theory expects and "pays off" as the 4th Cardinal pole on a wheel or circle or “game” of 4 Cardinal poles.

The difference is factored by the possibility of two directions. That is: 2 (.33333 - .25) = .16666.... .

A “wheel” only exists relative to a “game.” Wheels have no memory because they simply do not gravitationally exist relative to gravity and the apparent "randomness" that "wheels" purportedly deliver.

Gravitationally, relative to the geometry of randomness (as opposed to relative to the algebra of a “game” or “wheel”) all the real random gaming action --the geometric action with the flat-bet advantage-- is on the three poles of a field or game object’s relative diameter!

Diameters do not need a memory.
Relative to the underlying random gravitational events of roulette or any other randomly measured game or field, all that is gravitationally rotating in the first instance is the straight line, single dimension, 3-pole geometric probability structure of the wheel or field or game’s diameter!

The gravity bet succeeds because the three pole geometric structure of the prediction or bet matches the three pole geometric structure of that which is being predicted or bet.

In every case, that structure is not a round wheel is a straight line diameter."


  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: What if...
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2015, 07:31:43 PM »



Since not everyone has ready access to a roulette wheel, the dynamic results of the gravity bet may be seen using a random number generator.
There are two basic types of RNGs: true and pseudo.
Foremost, and the subject of this study are "true" random number generators.
The true RNG's can derive their numbers from several different random sources, from atmospheric noise to radioactive decay to the grey scales of a photograph and other such random sources.
Pseudo RNGs derive their numbers from a programmed algorithm that starts with a selected seed.
The numbers from a pseudo are not actually random but for most practical purposes, appear statistically similar to numbers from a true RNG.

Since pseudo RNG's are not truly random they are not part of this study.

While a series of integers from a true RNG may appear algebraically random ...geometrically, they are not as random as they seem.
The algorithm from a true RNG that filters and translates the random data into the decimal or other system nevertheless delivers a "randomness" that is still crackable with geometric probability.

Using the true random number generator of, a sample of 10,500 "bets" over 5,250 trials delivered a flat bet advantage of .176 .
The test used 36 numbers representing a "36 pocket wheel."
The numbers predicted were the ever changing relative two numbers representing the Center of Rotation.
These would be the numbers at the clean relative dimensional poles of East and West. Geometrically, they are the probability of relative 1/4 pi or "1/4 C" of the wheel.
As the methodology built into the algorithm "forces" the result into a single integer, it simultaneously delivers the effect of a geometric finesse.
The result is to eliminate the necessity of a finesse for the geometric player.
All that is necessary is to look at each successive number whether the result looked for is a pi-angle or a diameter base or cross diameter poles representing the Center of Rotation.
Which of the poles to predict or bet depends on how the algorithm is structured.

Another true random number generator was tested with a "36 pocket wheel" with only a thousand trials.
The prediction was a relative pi-angle pole on a "36 pocket" wheel.
It delivered a .175 advantage using the pi-angle pole.
A second test run of 2,100 trials on the same RNG delivered a flat bet advantage of .1485. When averaged, the result of that true RNG (Random Numbers Info) is .16178.... When looking for a flat bet advantage of .16666 at a relative pi-angle pole, that's as good as it gets.

The RNG is a fundamentally different event from the geometry of a live roulette wheel with a dealer's random release.
One difference is that the random release of the ball on a live wheel is delivered on an arc of .16666 of the wheel.
That there are individual favored pockets within that arc is a secondary result from the Coriolis and is a separate factor from the underlying randomness of gravity putting the ball "somewhere" in the .16666 arc.

Geometrically, the results from a roulette wheel based on an RNG are fundamentally different from a live wheel. 
With an RNG there is no physical "arc" within which the random event occurs.
This is not to say that an RNG does not display results in a geometric arc ...but geometrically, it is fundamentally different with a much smaller arc as the algorithm "forces" the event into a single pocket.

If other true RNGs are used, take a sample and track where the advantage is found relative to the dimensional poles.
It will forever tend to be at that same relative pole/pocket.

Pseudo RNGs require knowledge and manipulation of the seed.
They are basically a separate subject from this study into the randomness of gravity.


This is as close as it can get to the near perfect application of "action at a distance" to gaming.

On a 38 pocket roulette wheel, at the third in a series of three random trials, with a dealer’s random release of the ball, predict or bet the 5 adjacent pockets on the physically direct opposite side of the wheel from the pocket of the first trial.
This is the basic gravity bet.
Only the third trial is predicted or bet.

The gravity bet has little to do previous "numbers." In the first instance of randomness, it is not "numbers" on a circle that are occurring or being predicted.
The random circumstance concerns only geometric positions on the circle's diameter.  The gravity bet and its prediction concern only such relative geometric positions.
This is the "actio in distans" that originated with Isaac Newton and that the Roman Catholic Church banned in the 17th Century.
This is the "action at a distance" that Albert Einstein called "spooky."
This is the "action at a distance" that drives Quantum Mechanics and Bell's Theorem.

The "numbers" on the wheel are only reference points that are meaningless by themselves.

A dealer's random release of a roulette ball is distinguished from the European or Asian Regulated release which requires a deeper finesse.
The Regulated release, and the Quadrant and Selective releases, are described and explored herein.

Let the first random ball land in any pocket.
Let it be, for convenience of this explanation, the pocket: “0.” The key to success of these matters --the "action at a distance" in the gravity bet-- is to geometrically structure the prediction or bet to match the geometric structure of gravity's straight line pull on that which is being predicted or bet.

That which is being randomly measured or bet is the diameter of a circle or field or game. All such diameters have three poles: one end, the Center of Rotation (COR), the "other end."
It is the "other end" that is predicted or bet.
This is the relative pi-angle pole. It is the pole and/or pockets directly opposite the first random event.

When "action at a distance" is used, the gravitational structure is the same in all series of random events. Regardless of the "shape" of the game or game object, the geometric nature of gravity's random pull is identical in all instances.
It is a straight line pull along the game or game object's diameter or "pi-angle."

The geometric player waits another turn, letting the second ball land anywhere.
Within the concept of "action at a distance," the second event is assumed to reflect the game or wheel or field's COR.
This second event is ignored.
It is a default event about which the player does nothing. Eliminating the second measurement is the geometric finesse.
This methodology is the heart of "action at a distance."
This is also the heartbeat of Quantum Mechanics and Bell's Theorem.

The third ball is predicted to land in the .16666 of the wheel that represents the relative "pi-angle" pole.
On a 38 pocket wheel, that would be one of the five pockets directly and physically across the wheel from the pocket of the first ball.
In this example, and on all 38 pocket American roulette wheels, the pockets directly opposite “0” are: 13, 1, 00, 27, and 10.

It is that simple!

The geometric player has just enacted Quantum Mechanics in the game room!

The five relative opposing pockets on a 38 pocket wheel are a relative dimensional pole. In geometry, it is called a “pi-angle” pole.
In the gravity bet, it is also a pi-angle pole/pocket.
The five relative pockets most closely represent an even spread of one sixth of the wheel’s 38 pockets. That is: .16666 of the wheel.
It must be noted that 6.33333 pockets cannot be evenly bet on a 38 pocket wheel. So too, it must be noted that 7 pockets necessarily include a geometrically losing proposition.

The value of .16666 is the .33333 geometric probability of one of three rotating diameter poles, factored by the algebraic possibility of two directions, with the geometric certainty of one direction.
Without factoring the geometric certainty of one direction, the algebraic possibilities of two directions would be meaningless in this study of geometric probability.

The gravity bet is easily and best played with short sessions at several different wheels. It is absolutely critical that the dealer use a random release.
The geometric player will tend to averagely win half of the sessions and lose half of the sessions.
In the long run, the player will mathematically enjoy a .16666 flat bet geometric advantage, less the standard house percentage: .05263.... !

The half win/half lose scenario strongly suggests a "seed" circumstance.
The seed would be an average alternating start with a diameter base or a Center of Rotation.
If with a seed that is a natural diameter base, it would tend to be a flat bet winning scenario. If with a seed that is a COR, it would be a seed it would tend to be a series subject to traditional random odds.

The overall net advantage (that is: the .16666 flat bet geometric advantage less the house percentage): .16666 - .05263 = .11403.... .




  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: What if...
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2015, 07:35:58 PM »

"Two extensive Roulette studies, using the random release, taken 25 years apart, were compared using the gravity bet.

The “Pi-odds Roulette Study” was taken in the late 1990's.
It is the statistical heart of CRACKING PI CRACKING RANDOM.
It is a study of 21 roulette wheels from both major Las Vegas casinos and a major Indian casino.
In Vegas, only major Strip casinos were used.
The only criterion was whether the dealer was releasing the ball randomly.
Each dealer's release was carefully studied for several minutes before being accepted into the study.

The earlier study, “Roulette Statistiks,” was published in two volumes in 1979 and 1980.
Each volume contains the trials and outcomes from one wheel, eight hours a day, from morning to late afternoon, for one month.
Each volume was recorded in a different casino.
The two casinos involved had agreed to provide a dealer whether there were money players at the table or not.
The publisher hired a young man to sit and record (he was replaced soon after starting when he was found taking an unscheduled break).
The format of each book arranges the outcomes in vertical columns.
The columns stretch across each double page.
The number of trials and columns for each day varied depending on whether there were money players ...which would slow the play.
As well, the number of trials would vary by the differing individual speeds and styles of the various dealers.
Each column contains 53 trials.
Since each Roulette trial at takes approximately one minute, each column roughly represents one hour of play.

Analysis of "Roulette Statistiks" gives the following unusual results.
Using the geometric finesse, only the first column of the first day of the first volume, and the second column of the first day of the first volume, and thereafter, only the second column of each day of the first volume, gives the geometric advantage where it is expected: at the relative pi-angle pole.
It comes with near predicted precision to the expected: .16666!

Unusually, the second column of each day of the second volume delivered a near precise .16666 flat bet advantage at the relative diameter base ...which is that to which the relative pi-angle pole is relative.
This would appear to indicate the dealer was releasing the ball directly opposite the last successful pocket.

Early in the study, after this author wrestled hundreds of hours to understand this unusual phenomenon, the only possible explanation in the first volume --that throughout the book only the second column (and the first column of the first day) delivered the expected flat bet advantage-- seemed to be the possibility there was extra supervision of the dealer during those particular periods.
Statistically, it appears that at other times the dealer was not throwing randomly!

This seems reasonable since, during daytime periods when there inevitably were fewer players than at night, there would be frequent periods when there would be no players ...and the casino would have no reason to supervise the table.
In those circumstances, a dealer could play his own “games” with a release of the ball that was other than random.

When there were no money players at the table, dealers could also have been responsive to the natural question that virtually anyone would opportunely ask when alone with an unsupervised roulette dealer and there was no money at stake: "could the dealer hit a particular number or group of numbers or areas of the wheel?"

It is worth noting that a dealer's ability to successfully hit specific parts of the wheel is reported in a book of roulette by Thomas Bass, "Eudaemonic Pie," Houghten Mifflin, 1985.
If this was also the case in "Roulette Statistiks" --wherein the dealer was "playing games" with himself when there were no money players and therefore less supervision-- where did the extra supervision come from during only the second hour of each day if the casino did not provide it or need to provide it since there were likely few or no players during the day, particularly in mid morning?

The mystery was solved with a call to the publisher of "Roulette Statistiks."
When asked if she went to the casino during the second hour of each day, stayed around for an hour to supervise, then left, she responded “No husband did!” He was then recently retired but had been a senior employee of the casino.

Without this explanation, the probability of the second hour of each day delivering a predictable and near precise .16666 random flat bet geometric advantage, complete with formula, for 30 days, without the geometric finesse, is nothing short of giga-astronomical under any theory of randomness!

A true .16666 flat bet geometric advantage was predicted in both studies, modified by the fact that only 5 pockets were bet rather than 6.33333 pockets.

The difference may be statistically accounted for.

The difference between 6.33333 pockets and 5 pockets is: 1.33333 pockets.

When 1.33333 pockets are divided by 38 pockets, the quotient is: 1.33333 / 38 = .0350877.... .

When .16666 is factored by .0350877, the result is: .0350877 (.16666) = .0058479....

When .0058479 is subtracted from .16666 the answer is: .1608187.... .
This is the expected flat bet advantage from predicting or betting the 5 pockets comprising a relative pi-angle pole on a 38 pocket Roulette wheel with a dealer's random release of the ball.

The studies delivered a true (paying off at true odds without the house advantage) flat bet advantage of: .16130.... in the Pi-odds study.

The true flat bet advantage in Roulette Statistiks Vol I was: .16235.... .

When the payoff is accounted for with the house advantage of: 2/38 = .0526315...., the expected net results are, from a theoretical .16666 advantage,  a geometric advantage: .114035.... .

When 5 pockets are bet, the net expected advantage after the house advantage is accounted: .1608187 - .0526315 = .1081872.... .

The Pi-odds Roulette study delivered a net flat bet advantage of: .10018.... .

The net flat bet advantage for Roulette Statistiks was: .10117.... ."



  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: What if...
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2015, 07:42:53 PM »


With a non random release, the flat bet advantage is looked for at the fifth random trial, at the diameter base.
That is, the pole/pocket of the first trial.
The most common release other than random is the regulated release.
It is widely used throughout Europe and Asia.
By law, regulation or custom, this generally requires the dealer to release the ball over the last successful pocket.
Since the average "distance" between one random measurement and the next is 1/4 of the circle or wheel, the effect of consistently releasing over the last pocket is similar in effect to retarding the distributor advance of an internal combustion engine by 1/4 of the circle of points.
At the fifth retardation, the effect on what would otherwise be random is to return the matter to the beginning points.

This is also true for random number generators.
RNG's do not replicate true randomness in the first instance such as a roulette wheel with a random release would do.
The difference is in the metric.
In roulette with a random release, there is no metric.
The appearance of a metric measure via the "pockets" is only an appearance.
The drop of the ball into a "pocket" is an event of the second order of randomness.
The drop somewhere within .16666 of the wheel's circumference is the first order of randomness.

With RNG's, the randomness is first filtered through the decimal system.
That's enough to retard the natural advance of randomness.
The randomness of an RNG is only "random" relative to our mathematical perceptions. It is not relative to gravity in the first instance.


The most effective way to find the advantage for a particular release protocol is to take several samples of approximately 50 to 100 trials for a particular wheel and track where the advantage is appearing on that wheel.
Keep in mind that the Coriolis forces may tend to deposit the ball in a particular relative pocket depending on the manufactured shape of the wheel and frets.


In gaming, there are two forces that are unique to roulette: Centrifugal and Coriolis.

When randomly and geometrically looked for, Centrifugal force adds a .11111.... flat bet advantage  the basic universal advantage of .16666 . That is: .16666 + .11111 = .27777.... .

The additional .11111 advantage is the geometric probability of the straight line of a diameter of three poles factored by the algebraic possibility of the three poles squared. This appears to be the tendency towards geometric certainty after three series of three random events, each with the relative pi-angle pole predicted, at the third trial, as a .33333 geometric probability.
It completes the product of 1/3 (that is: the geometric probability of a relative diameter base) and 1/3 (that is: the geometric probability of a relative pi-angle pole).

The middle pole is the COR which is finessed through with the "action at a distance" of the gravity bet.

The product delivers the relative random value of Centrifugal force.
That is: 1/3 X 1/3 = 1/9 = .11111 .

The centrifugal advantage is over and above the .16666 universal flat bet advantage.

The Coriolis force modifies the Centrifugal direction.
The Coriolis is not actually a "force" but is rather a factor of rotation, orientation and perception.
To a person sitting smack in the middle of a rotating wheel, a ball rolling straight out from the COR would appear to roll in a curve.
To a person standing beside the wheel, the same ball would appear to roll straight.

The Coriolis force does not statistically appear in older roulette wheels.
This is due to the steep slope of the rotor (the part of a roulette wheel that spins) wherein the ball drops quickly and for only a short a distance.
In other words, there isn't much bounce before the ball hits a pocket and stops.

However, the Coriolis dramatically appears with the newer "low profile" wheels that were introduced in the late 1970's.
With the sides of the rotor almost flat with only a casual slope, they are designed with an intent to allow the ball more time and room to bounce around.
This is, in theory, to give more "randomness" to the occasion.

From the statistics herein, using "action at a distance" on a low profile wheel, it is apparent the Coriolis tends to averagely "move" the measurement of a dead center pi-angle pocket of a relative pi-angle pole to one side by the distance of: ...precisely one pocket!

Playing the Centrifugal and Coriolis forces delivers another unique phenomenon.
It effectively gives the house an additional pocket.
Since only one individual pocket is targeted by the additional straight line of Centrifugal force, and since a house number will tend to averagely appear with the same frequency as any other number, the house effectively enjoys the advantage of an additional pocket as the house pocket enjoys the success of geometric probability as well as its algebraic possibility.
That is: 3/38 = .07894.... !

In the Pi-Odds Roulette Study, recorded from new low profile wheels, the Centrifugal force appeared with a true flat bet advantage: .27603.... . Allowing for a house advantage: .07894, that theoretically delivers a net flat bet advantage: .19866.... !

In Roulette Statistiks, recorded from older high profile wheels whereon the Coriolis was limited, the Centrifugal advantage appeared as expected: in the dead center pocket of the relative pi-angle pole.
It appeared with a true flat bet advantage: .26666 .
That gives a net advantage: .18276.... !

The results tested in Roulette Statistiks, VOL II, indicate a geometric variation in which a flat bet advantage: .16178.... was found, at the third trial, at the pole/pocket of the relative diameter base!
This may possibly be explained by the fact that Las Vegas attracts dealers from all over the world, most of whom are already trained to use a Regulated release of the ball (as is common in Europe and Asia) or a precise geometric version thereof.

The particular casino recorded in "Roulette Statistiks, Vol II," is in a relatively obscure off-strip Las Vegas location.
As a working casino, it has never been successful and has passed through a succession of owners and bankruptcies.
It may also have been part of a system that was training foreign dealers for American casinos.

Since virtually all foreign roulette dealers are trained in some version of a Regulated release, the statistical phenomenon in "Roulette Statistiks, Vol II," appears to be from a foreign dealer using a unique geometric variation of a Regulated release.
Statistically, from an analytical perspective, that release appears to be a release over the direct opposing pocket (relative pi-angle pocket) from each previous outcome.
This would be a variation of the Quadrant release and would perhaps explain why the advantage was .16666 rather than .08333 .
Since the release protocol is unknown, only future experimentation will show the truth.

Another study of roulette trials of one wheel for one month was published in 1971, “Roulette for the Millions” (O’Neil-Dunne).
It contains 20,000 trials and was recorded in Macao.
The study used a team of people playing 24/7.
The only break was for 15 minutes each morning when the wheel was balanced.
A random selection of over ten thousand trials was analyzed using the geometric finesse.
The selected trials were the first ten days of the month and the remaining Fridays and Saturdays.

Since, in Macao, a dealer’s release is regulated to be over the last successful number, a deeper finesse is necessary, with a rotational variation to the relative diameter base. This is described in CRACKING PI CRACKING RANDOM.
It is carefully noted that O’Neil Dunne reported the wheel was not reversed with each spin. The results gave a flat bet advantage of: .09673.... .

Since the relative pi-angle pole is, with near expected precision, to be twice that of the diameter base, it is apparent the various dealers may have been following a consistent release protocol that would shift the pi-angle focus by a pocket.
For example, the casino protocol may require the dealer to release the ball with his fingers in a certain position that could cause the randomness of the release to be geometrically shifted by a pocket.
This may have shifted the expected results by a pocket.

A book titled “Roulette System Tester” was published in 1995.
It contains 15,000 trials from a variety of wheels in several minor off-strip Las Vegas casinos.

With such a wide variety of dealers, there would have been a variety of releases, some Random, some Regulated, some by Quadrants, some by dealer’s Selection.
The first edition of “Roulette System Tester” contains numerous errors in which parts of various columns of numbers are erroneously repeated.
The publisher has reportedly corrected these errors in a subsequent edition but it is not known if they reflect the original recordings or are patches from a random number generator (which would somewhat skew a geometric finesse unless the patch was known as such and adjusted for).
Using the geometric finesse, and allowing for the publishing errors in the first addition (to avoid statistical distortion if the "corrections" in the subsequent edition in fact came from an RNG as generally appears) the results of all 15,000 trials (less the publishing errors) delivers a flat bet advantage of .08623.... directly on the center pocket of the pi-angle pole.

This is remarkably close to the precision (.08333) of Bell’s Theorem and the Quantum sciences ...which use the same geometric finesse to predict random particle spin.

A study of two wheels, for one day at Casino Baden Baden, also gave predicted geometric results. Like the protocol in “Roulette for the Millions,” the dealer’s release of the ball is Regulated.
However, in Baden Baden, the direction of the wheel’s spin is reversed with each trial. The results of almost 400 trials, with the deeper finesse that is required with a regulated release, delivered a flat bet advantage of .15025... !
A variation of the bet, predicting the Coriolis and Centrifugal forces delivered a flat bet advantage of: .34196... !

Similar results, with near precision, of .08333 and .16666 (depending on how the software program factored direction) have been obtained from books that publish “Roulette” trials but are actually from random number generators.

Additionally, many studies revealed another unusual geometric phenomenon.
A flat bet advantage is nearly always found at both ends of the field or game’s diameter ...but the pi-angle pole tends to be precisely double that of the diameter-base!

The phenomenon of the diameter base (any random outcome) as the first of a series, revisited for prediction with a deeper finesse and delivering a flat bet .08333 advantage, is the result of the diameter base being part of the diameter, but not yet being relative (the relativity of "action at a distance" over three random trials).
This give a diameter base a .33333 geometric probability as a diameter pole as well as an algebraic possibility of .25 on the circle.

That is: a diameter-base that is not relative has a mathematical possibility of 1/12 of the circle. That is: 1/3 (1/4) = 1/12.

Since 1/12 of a 38 pocket wheel is just over 3 pockets, that is what delivers the flat bet advantage. At first blush, there is no apparent advantage since 3 pockets are clearly proximate to 1/12 of the wheel.
The traditional payoff matches the bet. But the non relative diameter base also contains the geometric probability of the algebraic possibilities of the COR.
It is this --the algebraic possibilities of 3 pockets over 4 trials-- that meets the expectations of traditional random theory.
However, the diameter base still contains its own geometric probability: .08333 ."

The geometric probability of the non relative diameter base appears to be the mathematical explanation of "beginner's luck."

Beginner's luck is discussed separately, but in general, it is the natural and automatic geometric probability that is in every series of random outcomes ...but is impossible to find after the third trial without "action at a distance."
That is: it is impossible to find without a geometric finesse. The player who arbitrarily and randomly enters a game, is automatically enjoying the effectiveness of a finesse!!

Without "action at a distance," the fourth bet automatically puts the roulette player into an algebraic system of circles, cardinal poles and quadrature.
That is, into traditional random theory in which there is no flat bet advantage.

Action at a distance keeps the roulette player in the world of geometric probability and pi-angles ...and able to enjoy a very distinct flat bet geometric advantage."


  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1684
  • Thanked: 283 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: What if...
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2015, 06:21:37 PM »


  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: What if...
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2015, 07:52:09 PM »
@ Real,
Chinese for you?! :)


  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1684
  • Thanked: 283 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: What if...
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2015, 08:52:09 PM »
keeps the roulette player in the world of geometric probability and pi-angles ...and able to enjoy a very distinct flat bet geometric advantage."

That part is a bit absurd.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2015, 08:54:17 PM by Real »


  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: What if...
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2015, 09:01:18 PM »
That part is a bit absurd.

Depending on the angle of view...
For example if you interpret it literally it's like you said,but with a bit of twist...this would do!


  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1977
  • Thanked: 357 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: What if...
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2015, 09:40:59 PM »

What exactly is odd?
My suggestion is not to take literally everything,however there are valid points.
Perhaps the author didn't revealed everything in purpose...
I've read it 2 to 3 times and there are contradicting information,my conclusion is that since all information comes from the same source,the author intentionally missed something,which might be the key.