A Test in Precognition - Bicycle Deck of 52 Cards

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
So most people ask for stuff like iPad's, cars, clothes, money, and so forth for Christmas. Not me. I asked my family for two candles, a chessboard, and a Bicycle deck of 52 playing cards. Lately, I have been playing with the deck of playing cards in a test of precognition. There is either one of two methods I will use, which I will describe here.

There is the first one; red or black. This one is simple, you shuffle the deck a few times, and turn over a car, thinking about what color is may be before seeing it. If you are correct, place it in a stack to the right, if it is wrong discard it to the left. At the end of the test, count the number of cards in each stack: right and wrong, to determine whether you did well or not.

The second method I use is, high or low. The concept of this game is essentially the same as before. Cards Ace through Seven are considered low, while 8 through King are considered high. Once again place them into piles of right/right, left/wrong. At the end, tally each to see if you are doing well or not.

The objective of each method is to at least score more right than wrong, and at best, have the correct pile at least contain 1/3 more than the incorrect. To determine, take the pile you got wrong, tally the cards, take a 1/3 of it, and you should have got that much more right. This can vary, so you need to use judgement on the percentages.

Here are my results so far for tonight; keep in mind it is best to practice this every day, to see a positive change in success.

First Round : Red or Black. Correct : 46, Incorrect : 6
Second Round : High or Low. Correct : 33, Incorrect : 19
Third Round : High or Low. Correct : 30, Incorrect : 22
Fourth Round : High or Low. Correct : 37, Incorrect : 15

I encourage each of you to try this and post your results, as will I at the end of each day. I will attempt to complete at least a minimum of four rounds or more. Practice makes perfect though.. I usually don't consciously think about it, whichever one asserts itself in my mind before I turn the card over is the one I typically go with unless I have a feeling it isn't.

Updated Method : This time shuffle the deck, pull a card without looking and attempt to match both the color and the value. I.E. High Black, Low Red, High Red, Low Black, and place them into piles as before. I would recommend trying this out after practicing both of the methods individually for a few days. You will have a 1/4 chance of being right, so this will slightly up the difficulty from a straight 50/50 chance.
edit on 4-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Ideally you need to get an impartial umpire and record the whole thing.. of course we never really know if you've made 100 previous attempts and only uploaded the 1 that worked out in favor



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by cartesia
 


It doesn't take any impartiality....You guess the color before turning the card over, and you tally up the correct-incorrect. There isn't really a way to cheat, unless you are cheating yourself by peeking.

I would make a video, but I won't for the same reasons I haven't yet.

I'm not putting my face on video and linking it with this account.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas

There is the first one; red or black. This one is simple, you shuffle the deck a few times, and turn over a car, thinking about what color is may be before seeing it. If you are correct, place it in a stack to the right, if it is wrong discard it to the left. At the end of the test, count the number of cards in each stack: right and wrong, to determine whether you did well or not.


Your choice of Xmas gifts is excellent -- especially the chess board. Memorize some classical openings and responses and learn to cover plus play the endgames and you will do better than most!

The results you have had with the cards are probably not as indicative of precognition as you think. Since you are using a full deck each time and are aware of the results along the way, you are probably just training yourself to keep better track of the actuals along the way. It may be conscious or subconscious tracking, but tracking is very likely. It's hard to avoid noticing an excess of a color or high/low values part way through the deck.

Try the following modification: draw the 7th card from the top only (don't look at any during the draw), then make your guess and record the response. Then restore that card to the deck in the middle somewhere and reshuffle a few times. That way you can be fully aware of the results along the way and it won't matter. At least until you begin to get better at subconscious alteration of the shuffling. Which might happen if you do this enough.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by cartesia
Ideally you need to get an impartial umpire and record the whole thing.. of course we never really know if you've made 100 previous attempts and only uploaded the 1 that worked out in favor


I'd give the OP the benefit of the doubt at this time. This isn't a scientific test of any sort and just the uploading of an example set. The OP's just indicating a training methodology. With a little practice, maybe a lot, you should get more than half most of the time.
edit on 4-1-2013 by BayesLike because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


BTW: It's extremely difficult to separate "proof" of precognition, telekinesis, and clairvoyance. How can you know which occurs: looking into the future when the resulting draw is revealed, the current condition is being read, or if you influenced the shuffle results? Part of the problem is caused by recording anything and part of the problem is that a psuedo-random choice was made that could have been affected.

This was part of the problem behind the procedures at Duke many decades ago.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


There is a way to train yourself with a chessboard as well. Turn it horizontally and place the candles on either side, focusing your eyesight on the center of your nose. At some point, the colors on the chessboard should start to merge so that you only see one uniform color. There is a bit more to it, but I will get the exact method from Jean Dubuis and post it here.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


I'm not recording the colors. I don't even remember the answers. I just go with my gut feeling before turning it over. If I'm right it goes into one pile, and if I'm wrong it goes in the other. At the end you are just counting, pile vs pile. You pick them up together, shuffle and cut, vigorously until you are satisfied they are mixed up, and then try again. If you really want, you can have someone else handle the cards for you.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by BayesLike
 


I'm not recording the colors. I don't even remember the answers. I just go with my gut feeling before turning it over. If I'm right it goes into one pile, and if I'm wrong it goes in the other. At the end you are just counting, pile vs pile. You pick them up together, shuffle and cut, vigorously until you are satisfied they are mixed up, and then try again. If you really want, you can have someone else handle the cards for you.


Unfortunately that doesn't exclude your subconscious mind from doing the tracking. In particular, subconscious tracking is something you would not be aware of but your "gut" feeling would. This is inherent in using a full card deck. To become a training vehicle, you have to do something to cause both conscious and subconscious tracking to be statistically independent from the random selection. I can't see a way to do that without using a single draw only, replacing the card, and reshuffling. At some point, you would probably need a mechanical shuffler to ensure that your subconscious didn't assist during the shuffle itself.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
This is clearly nonsense.

No one has ever managed to demonstrate such ability.

EDIT: Sorry, the method is actually a bit silly, since it gives you a tiny advantage. So, if you do a bit of counting, the odds are slightly in your favor.
In any case, your claimed results wouldn't mean anything in this context anyway for that reason.
edit on 4-1-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-1-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


I'm not sure how my subconscious can affect the placement of the cards when shuffled, and keep track of the cards from the previous round...But I will try randomizing it up a bit.
edit on 4-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


BTW: if you are into gambling (assuming it's legal where you live), even if you are just training subconscious tracking -- this would be useful in 21 and Poker until the deck is changed. All you really need is a little edge. If you have the cash to play a large number of times a small advantage over the house will help considerably. Unfortunately, you still would have a probability of a long series of losses which is longer than your pockets are deep...



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


It's not nonsense. It's a similar version to Zenner cards, I just don't have that deck. However, the chances to be right vs wrong is 50/50.

The statistical odds of getting all 52 correct is quite low, and was actually featured on an episode of 'Numbers' back on CBS a few years ago. It was some ridiculously high number, that was essentially impossible to be coincidence or written off.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


I'm attempting to use the "High or Low" method more, because I think if I were to develop a better grasp, it would be beneficial in attempting to play 21, if I knew what type of card I would get before hand; high or low.

I assume an even harder test would be a combination of the two : Red/Black & High/Low.

Lift a card without looking, High Red or Low Black, etc. This might make it closer to Zenner cards, and a bit harder.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Lack of demonstration is not proof of nonsense. It's just lack of demonstration. A proof of nonexistance is also essentially impossible. You can talk honestly only of rareness, and lack of known physical mechanisms, under assumed procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. Science deals most easily with known, observable forces and mechanisms.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


It's a similar version to Zenner cards, I just don't have that deck. However, the chances to be right vs wrong is 50/50.

The statistical odds of getting all 52 correct is quite low, and was actually featured on an episode of 'Numbers' back on CBS a few years ago. It was some ridiculously high number, that was essentially impossible to be coincidence or written off.


Ahhh.... my point is that the odds of right vs wrong is not 50/50 when you deal with the entire deck. You only have a 50/50 chance on the first card if you are seeing the result each time. Once you know the first card was (say) red, that means the deck only has 25 red cards remaining and 26 black cards. How well your subconscious tracks what has already occurred alters your chances.

Numbers usually did a pretty good job with Stats, I'd be surprised to see if they got this one wrong. They must have stated an assumption which would not generally hold. For 50/50 odds, you need a new deck for each draw.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


Hmm. It's interesting that you bring it up from that perspective.. It would certainly be a good possibility, but I don't leave myself much room to 'estimate' or 'factor' stuff like that. Each round takes roughly a minute, because it's like, boom, boom boom. I just keep spitting out randomly. There have been quite a few times I got several cards in a row incorrect.

But I starred you for mentioning that. I will see if there is a way for me to develop a method in which it would be completely randomized..Maybe this would require some sort of partner to just note these down without telling me until after it is completed.
edit on 4-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


It's not nonsense. It's a similar version to Zenner cards, I just don't have that deck. However, the chances to be right vs wrong is 50/50.

The way you do it, it's not 50/50.
When you pick the first card, it's 50/50, if we assume that your preparations have been correct.
The problem is that after that pick, you look at the card to see if you were right.
The next draw will no longer be 50/50. If the first card was red, the odds in the second draw will be ~ 51/49 in black's favor.

There may be other problems with your methods as well.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by BayesLike
 


Hmm. It's interesting that you bring it up from that perspective.. It would certainly be a good possibility,

It is not a possibility, it is a fact.



but I don't leave myself much room to 'estimate' or 'factor' stuff like that. Each round takes roughly a minute, because it's like, boom, boom boom. I just keep spitting out randomly.

Whatever you "think" or claim to think is irrelevant if is clear that the odds are not 50/50 in your draws.



There have been quite a few times I got several cards in a row incorrect.

This also shows that you are merely the victim of statistics. If you are "good" how come you get a lot of misses in a row? Statistics says nothing about the next draw, it only tells what is expected to happen in the long run.
This is why you can't rely on statistics as some sort of magic answer on what is going to happen next, because there are sometimes "streaks" of "statistically improbable" events. And that's exactly what we are seeing here.



But I starred you for mentioning that. I will see if there is a way for me to develop a method in which it would be completely randomized..Maybe this would require some sort of partner to just note these down without telling me until after it is completed.
edit on 4-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)


You could perhaps do it yourself.
Instead of looking at the cards, write down (draw a line in a column red/black) through the whole deck and put everything in the same pile without looking. After you are done, go through the deck and look at your guesses.
This way you can go through the whole deck without it affecting the odds.
The only thing to be careful about is that you use a proper way to shuffle the cards.
edit on 4-1-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-1-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BayesLike
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Lack of demonstration is not proof of nonsense.

You are correct, I didn't prove anything. I simply said that it's nonsense because it is nonsense.



It's just lack of demonstration.

Yes, the reason why I chose to say that is because people who believe in these things usually dismiss pure logic, so I thought that maybe if he/she sees that he/she might be the only person on earth who knows how to do this, he/she might want to show it "for real", or just realize that he/she missed something obvious.



A proof of nonexistance is also essentially impossible.

Exactly. This means that people who claim nonsense to be true are the only ones who can do so. I can only say that it's nonsense.
The same way you can't prove that you aren't an ant in perfect disguise. It's up to me to prove it, because obviously I have a reason to think..erm, KNOW that you are an ant in disguise.
Or it could also be that I'm talking nonsense.



You can talk honestly only of rareness, and lack of known physical mechanisms, under assumed procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. Science deals most easily with known, observable forces and mechanisms.

Or, we can talk about nonsense, which this is.
And we could also try to talk why this is nonsense,for example, due to the non 50/50 experiment, the possible counting, bad shuffling, marked cards, lack of observers, and lies.

There are two outcomes of this. The OP corrects the methods and realizes he/she is no better at this than random selection, or keeps at it and steers the conversation to something "I am an ant in disguise, and you can't prove me wrong"-thing.

So, to conclude:
This is nonsense.
edit on 4-1-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join