On the right track Bill but even that is a simplification

For example you can entangle an electron and a photon so here we have two different sorts of quantum spin in two different things

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11577.html
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/a-quantum-dot-first-entanglement


Only this month it was shown you can entangle two chambers of billions of particles in two gas chambers

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-quantum-teleportation-atomic-distances.html

There is no way that the two chambers contain exactly the same number of atoms so a simple pairing 1 for 1 on spin is not really possible.

You are trying to simplify the effect too far and in doing so you lose some important understanding.

I understand you want to take you solid normal world and add entanglement into it without changing your solid world physics and you can only take that approximation and simplification so far before you lose the importance of what is happening.

So you have at least worked the entanglement to QM spin now you need to think about what QM spin is as clearly you can entangle the photons, electrons and protons with each other QM spin is deeper than the flavor of the particle.

To show you that in absolute form we can entangle two particles that never existed at the same time

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-physics-team-entangles-photons-coexisted.html

Entanglement and QM spin are a lot deeper than your current thinking and you need to think harder about what QM spin really means.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.