Grats! I believe I can solve your riddle but I need to attend to an important appointment. I of course agree that the key to all systems is the recovery method.
Oh hey, a quick update about the HE. The only way the number zero can be concretely tied to the HE is if one is only playing outside bets or will never bet the zero on the inside (and will bet every other number except the zero).
The true definition of the HE however, is the unequal payout to the total numbers available for betting.
Therefore, for your system to not be concerned with the HE, you need to consistently show profit at the end of every session; your system earnings are provably greater than the cost of the HE.
All of us however, are and will be, affected by the HE on every spin.
EDIT: Back. You are asking me to get 7 spins in a row correct! This is on the order of impossible and will not likely be seen in an individual lifetime. The answer is (1/37)^7 which is 0.0000000000105339 or 94,931,601,781 to 1; 94 billion, 931 million, 601 thousand, 781 to 1.
Or have I misunderstood and you want me to then perform that 7 times over!?
If so that is 664,521,212,467 to 1; 664 billion, etc.
Somehow you have twisted this around so these are the odds for you to lose... So I first think about betting the last 7 numbers somehow... Clearly you are betting for them NOT to repeat (and probably not do so 7 times in a row?)...
Instinct says that if you have a rolling 7 numbers on each spin, you eventually will receive a set of numbers that must hit or the odds will exceed 664B to 1.
So we assume the maximum total numbers spun is 49...?
I assume this is the principle behind your method but because you have already stated that you are adjusting your bet selection, it is far too complicated for me to deduce...
I thing I know though, is that it is far more likely than 664B to 1, to get 37 unique numbers and simply playing Quads on the last numbers spun will lose far more commonly than 664B to 1.
Therefore in order for your system to work, you must have discovered an actual bet selection (specific numbers based on the random sequence) that will hit far more commonly than their native statistical chances.
Your discussion of linear algebra in connection with probability-expectation and how it correlates with guessing how an electron will move, makes my mind spin with joy!
I understand what you must have discovered and because of this, I also understand it will be far too complex for me to recreate it through deduction. It is what we are all searching for:
A way to choose numbers more accurately than 1:37 per number chosen.
Does a computer RNG use electrons to generate random numbers? I am sure it does.
LOL. Your name -- Cone -- haahah :D
(http://i66.tinypic.com/mig9xg.jpg)
1:37..........................................................664B:1
In the case of antisymmetry, solutions of the wave equation for interacting electrons result in a zero probability that each pair will occupy the same location or state. This is responsible for the Pauli exclusion principle, which precludes any two electrons from occupying the same quantum state. This principle explains many of the properties of electrons. For example, it causes groups of bound electrons to occupy different orbitals in an atom, rather than all overlapping each other in the same orbit.
If we can literally cross out even small sections of the felt, we have an undeniable edge that is like owning our own mint.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png/280px-Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png)
Probability densities for the first few hydrogen atom orbitals, seen in cross-section. The energy level of a bound
electron determines the orbital it occupies, and the color reflects the probability of finding the electron at a given position.
If we can take a colored pen and color in every square on the felt, to indicate the differing probabilities...
Of course we all have thought of this but what it results in, is simply betting the sleepers, because both will show greater probability and a decreased performance versus expectation.
The only way to avoid this trap is to come up with a new way to determine probability and it would have to based on this geometric-algebraic formula that you are using?
If there was a way to assign "energy levels" to each number in roulette and then demonstrate a correlation between those figures and the probability of each number appearing AND this differed from the "standard" way of viewing probability, this could allow us to beat roulette through bet selection.
Do electron energy levels fluctuate and thus cause them to occupy different orbitals?
If the wheel was like an atom, I wonder if every number appearing once every 37 spins would be its center?
So, "energy levels" CAN be assigned to numbers if repeaters say, have a higher energy and sleepers, a lower energy etc...
However, a number's "orbital" would be the tracked performance of that number over a series of spins, where its energy could be graphically depicted as in the above image.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2cdcysj.jpg)
The "atomic orbital" of the number 17 over the last 49 spins.
Every number on the wheel is like an electron spinning around the atomic nucleus of expectation.
This inspired me to look into:
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=661.msg8839#msg8839
Don't download the software its kind of messed up. I will fix it.
This system exploits Reyth's Magnetic Pulse Theory^{tm} which states:
If a number appears with a very slow orbit, the chances of it repeating that same orbit or achieving an even slower orbit is statistically reduced.