newtobj: Ups and downs

[newtobj]

I am noticing a definite pattern in my limited experience playing blackjack. A rather frustrating pattern. I'll win a decent amount, but then give it all back. This pattern repeats itself. The hundred dollar bills are gone from my wallet, and it feels so lonely and empty. With just boring old ones and fives and tens and twenties. I miss those hundreds. But I know they will be back based on the pattern. They are only gone temporarily, just like they were only there temporarily. It seems alittle surreal, maybe it is all a mirage.

[Parker]

> I am noticing a definite pattern in my
> limited experience playing blackjack. A
> rather frustrating pattern. I'll win a
> decent amount, but then give it all back.
> This pattern repeats itself. The hundred
> dollar bills are gone from my wallet, and it
> feels so lonely and empty. With just boring
> old ones and fives and tens and twenties. I
> miss those hundreds. But I know they will be
> back based on the pattern. They are only
> gone temporarily, just like they were only
> there temporarily. It seems alittle surreal,
> maybe it is all a mirage.

Unfortunately, it is all too real. We play with a small edge and a large variance. This means that we will experience large swings, both positive and negative. In the long run, we will earn our expectation, but the trip there may be a wild ride indeed.

However, this does not mean that simply because you have had several winning sessions, you are now somehow "due" to lose. There is no "pattern" in that sense. The cards have no memory; they have no mind at all. You face exactly the same odds after each shuffle, regardless of whether you have been winning or losing.

[Brick]

I dont 100% agree. If we have an ev of $25 per hour and after 100 hours we have managed to win 100$ an hour due to variance. Then we can expect our luck to run out sooner or later. The problem is we do not specificly know when this will occur, but nevertheless it will occur and we must inevidently accept it.

Brick

> Unfortunately, it is all too real. We play
> with a small edge and a large variance. This
> means that we will experience large swings,
> both positive and negative. In the long run,
> we will earn our expectation, but the trip
> there may be a wild ride indeed.

> However, this does not mean that simply
> because you have had several winning
> sessions, you are now somehow
> "due" to lose. There is no
> "pattern" in that sense. The cards
> have no memory; they have no mind at all.
> You face exactly the same odds after each
> shuffle, regardless of whether you have been
> winning or losing.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> I dont 100% agree. If we have an ev of $25
> per hour and after 100 hours we have managed
> to win 100$ an hour due to variance. Then we
> can expect our luck to run out sooner or
> later.

By using the form 'if...then;' you are implying a causal relationship. But future results are not affected by past results. There is no causal relationship. Parker's post is correct.

BJStats

[Brick]

"By using the form 'if...then;' you are
implying a causal relationship."

What(if)hehee, we eliminate "if" to absolutely?

[Norm Wattenberger]

> What(if)hehee, we eliminate "if"
> to absolutely?

Well then it wouldn't be causal and would be accurate. And would be in 100% agreement with Parker's statement.

Take the boolean algebra statement 'If a then b'

[*]If a is known to be false, the statement is true even if b is also false.[*]If a is known to be true, then the statement is true only if b is known to be true.[*]If a is unknown and b is always true, then the statement is true.[/list]

In logic, no causal relationship is implied. The problem is that in English, statements that are logically true can imply a causal relationship that is untrue.

[humble]

> Take the boolean algebra statement 'If a
> then b'.

I take it you mean 'implication', i.e. IF a THEN b == (a OR (NOT b)), right?

> If a is known to be false, the statement
> is true even if b is also false.

Nope, ONLY if b is also false.

> If a is known to be true, then the
> statement is true only if b is known to be
> true.

Nope, EVEN if b is unknown.

> If a is unknown and b is always true, then
> the statement is true.

Nope, for that b must be always false.

But I can't believe all your examples are wrong so my initial assumption is incorrect?

[humble]

[Norm Wattenberger]

I actually have a couple of "IF 1=2 THEN" statements in my code. An easy method of temporary exclusion. Impossible implications have purpose. (Politics is an obvious real-world example.)

[pillow]

> I actually have a couple of "IF 1=2
> THEN" statements in my code. An easy
> method of temporary exclusion. Impossible
> implications have purpose. (Politics is an
> obvious real-world example.)

Not a particularly good advertisement for your programming

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Not a particularly good advertisement for
> your programming

There are always undocumented features in CV products. They are excluded from production copies until I'm comfortable that they are ready for distribution. (Most of the CVShuffle code was developed five years ago.) This is a safe method of temporary exclusion that is easy to change without any unwanted implications. The most important aspect of coding should always be maintainability.

Serious Blackjack Software

[SOTSOG]

I sometimes set a varible named "Donkeys_Fly" to false.

Then I can "Do Until Donkeys_Fly" for an infinite loop.

I also use a $G variable as a temp storage space for string data. That way I can always stick stuff in a G-String.

I think I'll stop now, before I totally geek out.

[Norm Wattenberger]

Can't believe I screwed that one up that badly Goes from not touching a book on boolean algebra in 38 years. Funny thing is the correct answers make my point about implication.

regards,
norm