Fresh Bread

• The below time table will teach the smoker how to discipline themselves in reducing their smoking habit. The numbers along the top represents the time of day and night; and the numbers down the side represents the time period in days, groups of days or weeks, depending on how addictive the smoker is. In the tables, the letter (y) informs the smoker the period hour in which to smoke.

Click on Original File

• The timetables above, instructs the smoker when and when not to smoke. The first table is designed to help reduce smoking, smokers who smoke under twelve cigarettes per day. Notice that one cigarette is reduced each day; and after twelve days would have reduced smoking to one cigarette per day. It would be close to a miracle if that were the results, so if the smoker finds that the course is too stressful, too sudden a reduction of nicotine intake, then the smoker should try to increase the day period margin. Instead of reducing one cigarette each day, the smoker should try to reduce one cigarette every three days, ending the course in thirty six days or, one cigarette every week, ending the course in twelve weeks. If the smoker finds that half way down the course, the concentration of the smoking period is too centered around the midday time period, then they should rather use the second time table above. If the smoker smokes only six cigarettes per day, they should start where the table has only six (y's) or, they should cut each cigarette in half and use a cigarette holder; and follow the twelve cigarette per day course, as explained above.
• The second time table, is designed for smokers who have been smoking few cigarettes for many years, also for heavy smokers. If for example, the smoker smokes thirty-six cigarettes per day, they should use the second table. The twelve (y's) in the beginning periods of the first day, must be divided into the amount of cigarettes the person smokes per day. In the example of thirty-six cigarettes per day, that would amount to three cigarette smoked within the one (y) and the next (y) period. Less could be smoked; but more should be avoided at all costs, if the course is to be successful. The day period that runs vertically down the side of the table can be increased to a week, as explained in the first table above. Once the heavy smoker has reduced their daily intake to twelve cigarettes per day, if they find that reducing by three cigarettes per day is too much of a reduction, they should change to the first table. It is important that before the smoker starts with the course, they should first work out the exact formula of the course, so that the reduction of cigarettes smoked is constantly controlled throughout the course. If the nicotine in the body is reduced gradually and constantly, the body will not suffer a sudden shock of withdrawal symptoms.
• It should be easy for a heavy smoker, who smokes thirty-six cigarettes per day, to reduce by three cigarettes per week for eight weeks, until the smoker has reduced to smoking only twelve cigarettes per day. In other words, the smoker smokes three cigarettes less each week for eight weeks. By this time, they have reduced to only smoking twelve cigarettes per day. If they find that reducing by three cigarettes per week, for the remainder of the four weeks is too stressful for the system, they should change to the twelve cigarettes per day smoking course. Reducing by one cigarette per day for twelve days, reducing one cigarette every three days for thirty-six days or reducing one cigarette per week for twelve weeks; is more recommendable to an ex heavy smoker. The fact is, that the habit must be reversed in a controlled manor, the smoker must not lose control of their drug addiction, by smoking at will in a stressful situation. It is important that stressful situations are controlled in timeframes; so that suffering of stress can be overcome with the help of disciplined timeframes. These short-term goals of achievement will encourage the smoker, that they are in control of their drug addiction; and if the course is completed, total success to end smoking can be achieved. It is very important that the smoker, who is taking the course, not be demoralized if they fail in their discipline to complete the course, they can always start over if they have fallen short of the rules or forgotten where they are in the timetable. For that reason it is recommended that they keep a timetable of their progress, so they can check at what times they can or can not smoke.
• The tables can also be tailored to an individual, dividing the times into more appropriate time-periods. For example, to coincide with smoke brakes permissible at work or meal times etc. As long as the daily intake of nicotine remains at a reducing amount, which the course prescribes; and as evenly spread as possible, to reduce symptoms of stress from the withdrawal of nicotine. This course must NOT be used for drug addiction other than tobacco and or alcohol; and at no stage should the dose be increased to facilitate the starting point. If the patient is accustomed to a smaller dose of drugs that the course starts with, then the course should start at the lower end of the second table. The start of the course would depend on the relative dose of daily intake; and extended in time as explained above, according to the severity of the addiction.
• Please be advised; under no circumstance may this course permit any drug abuser the right to take prescription drugs, which are prohibited by law, as an excuse for treatment of such drugs. Please consult governmentally approved drug rehabilitation centres, if you are addicted to prescription drugs.

This course should not be adhered to, if you are already on other supervised medical treatment or, if you are under the legal age restriction.

• Preface to the below course. To understand precisely what a fifty-fifty chance means, we have to examine in detail what happens when a coin is tossed to produce the result. Let us presume that we had a blank coin, shaped and produced from material making both sides equally balanced. To distinguish the difference, one would have to mark one side, thereby making the coin slightly unequal. If we controlled the environment where the coin is to be tossed; and designed a machine that would toss the coin precisely with equal amounts of energy for each toss, the journey (revolutions) that the coin would travel through the air would be the same on each toss. Providing that the coin started on the same side; and that the coin, the environment and the machine was not damaged in any way by the previous toss, as to unequal the event, the coin should fall on the same side every time. If the same coin were then turned over before it is tossed, the result should fall on the opposite side to the result before. The mark on the coin would be so slight that it would not have any short term effect on the journey of the tossed coin in relation to another identical coin that is not marked. The relative effect of one coin being marked; and another not, would only be revealed if the journey (revolutions) of the tossed coins is extended. If a slow movie were made of both coins tossed, at greater quantities of revolutions the effect of the marked coin would become apparent when the two movies are visually compared in the same time frame.
• At short journeys, the unequal coin would not have a significant impact on the revolution, forging enough tilt in degree. Both coins would bounce the same within the boundaries that produce short-term effects, having the same result, witnessed by the two comparable slow motioned movies. At long-term journeys, the slightest degree of tilt would gradually increase, until the boundaries are broken; and a different course of events would result in relation to each coin. The result would not conclusively be that both coins fall on opposite sides, they may both result on head's or tail's. The detailed journey there, is what distinguishes the phenomena of chance. We call it chance because we do not know all the unequal qualities that goes into producing the result, of a tossed coin that is very closely equal. If the exercise were performed in a controlled environment, as I have explained above, the result would be that a coin would fall on the same side every time, irrespective if the coin has a mark or not.
• The design of a roulette table, is one in which the red and black slots are closely equal; they are equal enough not to forge a favoured result more often. The only other dominant forces that effect the result, is the speed of the wheel, the position and the force in which the ball is ejected around the wheel. Excluding the zero and the expulsion of the ball out of the wheel, the only other two options that these dominant forces produce, irrespective of reasonable velocity, is that the ball will fall in the red slot or the black slot. These chaotic dominant forces combined with the closely equalled and stable design of the roulette wheel, produces a variance to an equal chance for the red and black slot. The combined chaos of the dominant forces results in an equal distribution of results. If these dominant forces were not chaotic, the result would be the same every time. These chaotic dominant forces are produced due to an orderly distribution of results, governed by the average statistical formula, which forms the pyramid structure explained in the course below. Chaos is therefore the observation of an uninformed mind. Chaos may appear to be chaos but it is not. There is a higher hidden order obscured to the mind that perceives chaos as just being chaotic or random.

• This course if understood, will convince the most stubborn of compulsive gamblers, that betting long term at a casino will eventually erode the gambler's capital away. It is statistically proven that long term, the odds are against them who bet against the casino.
• Although the gambler has the free will to walk away from the casino table at anytime, to avoid a statistical loss from a short-term profit, the gambler carries away with them their statistical history. The statistical energy whether it is a loss or a profit, is carried with them; and will eventually be equalized at a future date when the gambler again frequents a casino. To understand the statistical workings, I will explain the basic of a fifty-fifty chance. On the roulette table, a close comparison would be betting on black or red.
• If a coin is tossed by a person, the larger the amounts of times the coin is tossed, the smaller the percentage difference in the results of heads and tails will be realized. E.g. If a coin is tossed 100 times, the result will be quite close to 50 heads and 50 tails, let us presume 40 heads and 60 tails. This is 20% less or more than the average, which is 50 times. If the coin is tossed, 1,000,000 times, the chances are less likely that it will be 400,000 heads and 600,000 tails, that is 20% from the average. It will be much closer to the average, let us presume 499,900 heads and 500,100 tails. Now the percentage difference is point 02 percent. The reason for this will be revealed later, as we examine the number of times that heads and tails fall continuously before changing.

• The rest of the numbers from the formula, as explained in the previous example "diagram 2," works out accurately. These numbers below the peak combination set, are also predictable because they fall in a pyramid fashion, the lower set of numbers are double the next higher set of numbers, as the diagram 2 illustrates.
• When we compare the actual table of the coin tossed, "diagram 1;" and the statistical table "diagram 2," on plus minus 500 tosses, a similarity in the lower combination sets of the two tables can be recognised. As the coin is repeatedly tossed and recorded, the more accurate will the table become in relation to the statistical table formula, the percentage difference will diminish.
• I mentioned before, that on low quantity tosses, there is a greater percentage difference between heads and tails, in relation to the average. This can now be understood why. On low quantity tosses, the chance of tossing a high set combination of numbers, which will result in an imbalance to the total of heads and tails, is greater than when the tosses are at a much higher quantity, having less impact on the total heads and tails. As example, if you toss a coin ten times, the chances are likely that you can toss four heads in a row, two tails, two heads, one tail and one head making the total 7 heads and three tails. That is 40% from the average of 5 tosses each. The four heads in a row that was tossed in the ten tosses is 40% of the total tosses. In higher quantities of a thousand tosses, 40% would mean tossing heads or tails 400 tosses in a row, highly unlikely when the average set combination is only eight as demonstrated in "diagram 3." Although the statistical sequential order of chance, of tossing a coin ten times is, one head, one tail, one head, one tail, two heads, two tails, one head and one tail, the chance is that four heads can be tossed and unequal the average before correcting itself on future tosses. At greater quantities of tosses, the total number of heads and tails become too large to have a similar impact on the percentage difference. At about one thousand tosses, the average sets of combinations for both heads and tails are. One set of eight, two sets of seven, four sets of six, eight sets of five, sixteen sets of four, thirty two sets of three, sixty four sets of two and one hundred and twenty eight sets of one, making a grand total of 1004. See diagram 3. The difference between tossing seven heads and three tails, from a quantity of ten tosses is much greater than tossing a 40% increase, to one side, from the average of one thousand tosses, as explained above. This would force a fifty-fifty chance to become a seventy-thirty chance, from a greater quantity of tosses. The accumulative deviation has a greater impact on low quantity tosses than on higher quantity tosses.
• Another way in which to understand this phenomenon, is to imagine a grain of sand next to another grain of sand, they are about fifty-fifty. Now imagine a grain of sand next to the whole earth, they are definitely not fifty-fifty. Even if you add all the grains that make up the crust of the earth, it would still not equal half of the earth. It would become relatively less in percentage the larger the planet becomes. So too for the accumulative deviation that occurs at the face of the pyramid structure, of the sets of numbers that are formed when a fifty-fifty coin is tossed repetitively and recorded. See diagram ( 1 ) and ( 4 ).

• Ok, you might think; but what makes it sure that on a fifty-fifty chance, the second level is half the first level; and the third level, half the second level, as noted in diagram ( 2 ) and ( 4 )? The answer is, the ORDER of events. It is the closest possible order of events to continue to infinity, without contradicting a higher numbers order with equal chance of a spinning top, after all a roulette table is a large numbered spinning top.

• From the three diagrams, you will notice that diagram 5 can not be rearranged any other way. If it were changed to look like diagram ( 6 ) or ( 7 ), then the three-sided top diagram would have to look like diagram 7, or the diagram for the next number; and so too for the higher numbers. Diagram 5 would have to be left out, creating a gap to all the statistical formulas.
• If one of a fifty-fifty side fell in an unpredictable average pattern of order, then the patterns would not be equal in the long run. The one side would evolve into an unbalanced and warped shape in relation to the other side. How could larger quantities of spins create equal quantities of evenly dispersed numeric levels of results? The face of the pyramid structures would deviate from their average shape to unreasonable extent, theoretically, physically and literally, so that numeric levels of rarity would become non existent. To toss one head followed by one tail is more frequently achieved than to toss ten heads and ten tails in sequence as diagram 1 illustrates.
• For equally patterned shapes to evolve, both sides have to be equally the same. If one side of a fifty-fifty chance fell in a certain pattern, the other side also has to fall in the same pattern eventually. The high and the low of the deviated pattern must eventually turn and adjust to the average. Only if the sides are unequal will the average change in its favour. A properly designed top will eliminate any favouritism, which is very important to the betting of a casino.
• A long-term average of a fifty-fifty chance, consisting of a pyramid shape with grossly unequal sides and equal results for heads and tails is not possible. Diagram 8 illustrates a miniature example of the above statement.

• If the above had to happen, then the two side would not be equal; but warped in relation to each other, unordered if they are supposed to be fifty-fifty. In addition, the tail's second level would illustrate that it is less rare to toss two tails in a row than it is to toss one. In addition, notice that the sequence of x's in the table on the head's side consists of seven x's and on the tail's side six x's. As the sequence ended on the head side, it would have to begin on the tail side to continue a repeated sequence. An identical sequence would be impossible because the tail side does not contain enough x's to complete the sequence that will equalize the totals. The only way that the equality can be achieved without falsifying the rarity, would be to adjust so both tables are patterned the same as the x's in the head table.
• Ok you might think; but what if the average is not "2 to 1" on the two corresponding levels; but a fraction more, say "point 1" for every toss on the lower level. "2 point 1 to 1" (meaning: two sets of accumulative 1 point 1, to the higher single set). The first level would amount to "point 2 more" and would correspond with the extra toss on the second level with no extra value. The two double tosses on the second level would amount to "point 4 more" and would correspond with the extra toss on the third level with no extra value. On the third level, the amount would be "point 6 more," "point 8 more" on the fourth level and "one more" on the fifth level. The rarity of the higher level's toss would become more in relation to the "2 point 1 to 1" average. On the sixth level, the amount would be " 1 point 2" more. It takes "1 point 1 more" to equal an extra toss, which is the mid-point between the fifth and the sixth level. The undeveloped seventh level would gain an extra toss making it eight tosses in a row instead of seven, thereby not developing a seventh level. It would cause the rarity to increase from six on the sixth level to eight on the non-existing seventh level. This would leave out the possibility of tossing a seven-combination set in a row, impossible to the succession of numbers in this world of historic norms known to us.
• If the fraction was less, say "point 1" for every toss on the lower level. The first level would amount to "point 2 less" and would correspond with the extra toss on the second level with no extra value. The two double tosses on the second level would amount to "point 4 less" and would correspond with the extra toss on the third level with no extra value. On the third level, the amount would be "point 6 less," "point 8 less" on the fourth level. The rarity of the higher level's toss would become less in relation to the "2 point -1 to 1" average (meaning: two sets of accumulative 1 minus point 1, to the higher single set). On the fifth level, the amount would be " one" less. It takes "point 9 less" to equal a toss less, which is the mid-point between the fourth and the fifth level. The undeveloped sixth level would lose an extra toss making it five tosses in a row instead of six, thereby developing another fifth level. It would cause the rarity to decrease from five on the fifth level to remain five on another fifth level. Instead of the possibility to toss a six-combination set in a row another five-combination set in a row, impossible to the succession of numbers in this world of historic norms known to us. Similar can be proved for the other fractions.

• The deviation occurs at different degrees on each level, more frequently changeable at lower levels. The result of this pattern is a pyramid structure where the lower levels form the base of the "2 to 1" relationship. It is highly improbable that the structure can invert for extended quantity sets of results and impossible long term, in this world of historic norms known to us.
• The reason for the deviation from the average; is due to the imperfection of all the physical elements that go into producing the results. These imperfections are minor; and the greatest contribution to the resulted deviation, is the one who spins the top; but is made more predictable to the average, by the materials and design that go into producing a roulette table. I would be describing a special roulette table, with even black and red slots and no zeros. The deviation that occurs is within the average bounds; but is unpredictable due to numerous unknown factors. The casino is not in operation to gain on the deviation to the average. The deviation swings to both sides making it equal in the long run. The casino is in operation for the difference of an unequal chance. All the bets on a roulette table are designed that way.
• Let us presume that one played only the red slot of a roulette table, without missing a spin for a whole week, that is if one did not require any sleep. By the end of the week, the amount of times that the ball would fall into the red and black slot would be close to fifty-fifty. On average, the ball would also fall into the green zero slot, once every thirty seven times. If one were betting the same amount of money every time, at the end of the week one would be losing one bet for every thirty-seven bets. That is about 2,7% of the money bet. It would be half that if the casino gave half the money back, on the losses of that particular outside bet.
• I mentioned at the beginning of this course, that the history of one's statistical winnings or losses; remains with one always. It is not something that one can shake off or try to submerge with alcohol, as so many gamblers try to do. It is something much greater than anyone can try to warp for a long time; time here expressed in quantity of spins. In the long run, one loses that percentage of the total amount that one bets. A winning or losing spree will eventually be equalized, leaving the gambler minus that percentage. Each different monetary amount bet has no effect on the outcome, due to the casino's rules of the limit to the bets placed. Each different amount then becomes a statistic of its own. A casino that is persistent in acquiring the hard earned money of uninformed people, will budget enough money to weather a temporary storm, caused by the swing of the deviation that befalls it. It is in the casino's best interest, not to wipe out the gambler with too great unequal odds, scaring away the gambler; but to attract the gambler to come back. By this lowering of the percentage, the gambler experiences taking money home with them. This money is gained by the deviation to the average; and the gambler's reluctance to play all-day or night, being satisfied with their winnings. The continuation of the gambler's ignorance and greed, eventually brings them back; and the deviation formula swings back, leaving the gambler equal or on the loosing side of the deviation, minus that percentage of the total money bet. The gambler now thinks that luck will turn again in their favour, ignorant of the fact that statistically "yes," the deviation will turn; but minus that percentage of the total money bet, caused by the statistical formula.
• The statistical average formula above can guide one close to the pattern of how the balls will fall on each level; but not close enough in predicting the deviation to the average. If one recorded the outcome, waited for the deviation to occur before placing the bet, the results would be a more informed bet. For example, the chance is greater that the ball will fall in the opposite slot to the black or red slot that has just recorded a high number of recordings. The set of combinations could also be recorded; and if a deviation from the average formula were noticed, a bet on those gaps would be a more informed bet. The problem is that there is a limit to how much one can bet, so one can not double up until success is achieved. An informed bet becomes more rare with a higher degree of deviation, requiring much time in a busy casino. If the more informed bet were successful, it would not rule out a higher deviation against one's bet the next time. The correction of the deviation could occur after one has stopped betting, due to extended losses or profits; and that frequent combination of evenly distributed results, erasing short-term deviations, bringing the thirty seven to one chance of the zero closer. The whole exercise of determining the deviation, would be useless and a stumbling block, if that deviation recorded was an equalisation of a deviation BEFORE the recorded deviation. The personal statistical record would equal this imbalance; but the percentage difference of the total monetary amount bet from the unequal odds would still stand and increase one's losses. Knowing how much money one has lost in relation to the amount of money bet, can determine on which side of the deviation of losses or profits the gambler is on. In other words, if a gambler's total amount of money taken from their wallet, including each winnings that was betted again was 5,000 units, the losses should be approximately 2.7% of that combined money bet, provided that those were the odds as mentioned above. That amount's to 135 units. If the gambler started with 1,000 units and ended with 1,000 units, that would actually be a 135 units deviation in profit, in relation to what the difference of unequal odds is and the average statistical formula.

• This above statistical course does not prove that life is predestined. We still have the free will to enter within that environment to gamble. If we chose to continue to gamble, we would then suffer the fate comparable to a wooden log thrown into the fire, without the free will to escape its destiny. We would be throwing ourselves to that fate of losing units, if our objective were to gain them. Our knowledge in the greater statistical formula that determines our will is unknown to anyone. That liberates us from its bounds; by believing that we do have free will. Our honesty in accepting and confessing our ignorance of this greater statistical formula, absolves our conscience from the bounds that it may have; and we can consequently adopt it as our own free will. That leaves us with the choice to create good or evil. No one can blame the greatest statistical formula, that none of us know, for the outcome of one's destiny. Just because one understand how a less and manageable statistical formula works, manageable by the avoidance through the knowledge of its long-term outcome, does not justify presuming that the unknown formula destines the outcome in its own predictable way, thereby believing that nothing can be done to avoid it. We must not forget that the ignorant mind is exactly that. For that reason people go gambling, with the hope of being lucky or, with the thought of being smarter than the statistical formula that they do not know. If the gamblers honestly understood the truthfulness of this course above, they would definitely not gamble for the reasons of monetary gain.