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.

We're still doing administrative clean up on the presentation of the data bases. They will be a critical statistical backdrop when we move forward. The Pi-odds Roulette Study will remain the underlying matrix of geometric probability for cards and random number generators. This will require close fast work. Since everything about this site and forum is a first, these matters need to be thoughtfully arranged with work place convenience.

The gravity bet and the .16666 flat bet advantage is unique to roulette with a dealer's random release of the ball. Everything else, including roulette with other releases, cards, random number generators and the stock market ...are all extensions of the mechanics of a dealer's random release of the ball on a roulette wheel ...and the use of the geometric finesse in "action at a distance" to make the measurements.

The flat bet advantage of cards and random number generators is different from roulette, with a slightly different geometry ...but cards and RNGs cannot be understood without a basic grasp of roulette with a dealer's random release.

The random release on a wheel, with "action at a distance," also replicates Boskovic's prediction of the random orbit of a comet. This was the subject of the Laplace/Boskovic debate when Laplace posited the proposition that the randomness of gaming could predict the randomness of the universe.

The problem for Laplace was that he wasn't using "action at a distance." He simply said it was useless. Laplace was conclusionary  (that is: without reason) in his attack on Bokovic, but Laplace was safe.

The problem for Boskovic was that he was indeed using "action at a distance" ...but couldn't admit the flat bet advantage although it was there for all to see. Boskovic was essentially using the gravity bet. That is: take three random measurements and eliminate the second measurement while predicting the third measurement to be relative to the first.

The historical problem for the rest of us is this: just as a dealer's random release of the ball is the only way to understand the relativity of "action at a distance" in 2011 ...Boskovic's work was the only way to understand the relativity of "action at a distance" in 1776 .

Boskovic's success was destroyed for political reasons and the world has been stuck with traditional random theory ever since.

The forum will shatter traditional random theory but the truth is found in details. While the gravity bet is not difficult to understand, it will require a mental jump and some close attention.

Thank you again for your patience.

There is still some administrative cleanup of the data base to complete. Another couple of days should have it ready.

In the meantime, here are some further observations on roulette statistics derived from actual wheels. While many dealers throw randomly most of the time, the flow of randomness is interrupted when even a few throws are "from the green." Unless this change of release is known, the randomness of the flow is contaminated.

When a dealer throws randomly, the statistics reflect the straight line of a pi-angle or "diameter." It is here that the flat bet advantage is .16666. It is also relative to the straight line pull of gravity.

When a dealer throws "from the green," the statistics reflect a circle of 4 quadrants. There is still a flat bet advantage to be found, but it is only .08333 . It is also not relative to gravity, but to a wheel of 4 quadrants. The prediction with a geometric finesse is of a quadrant pole, not a relative pi-angle pole. This is the original Needle of relative 1/4 pi ...but it is the algebra of relative 1/4 pi relative to the geometry of the "game." Not relative to the geometric probability of gravity.

When a dealer throws with a regulated release, the statistics also reflect the relativity of a quadrant. Here again is the relativity of the original Needle ...but it is the geometry of the game relative to the gravity. This is found at the diameter base ...but with a different geometry and a deeper finesse.

When the wheel's direction is reversed with each spin, a unique statistical phenomenon appears to occur ...the flat bet advantage appears to double! Since the Pi-odds Roulette Study (and the Roulette Statistiks reports) were on American wheels that were not reversed with each spin, this area obviously requires more study.

We'll be going into these matters as soon as the databases are cleaned up. In the meantime, at least for the next couple of days, I'll continue to use this blog rather than the forum itself.