Actually this example shows just how silly this discussion is. How often are there exactly 5.0 decks remaining? Is he rounding the remaining decks and claiming an exact result? More likely you will see 4.9 or 5.1 decks remaining. If you are going to use decimals, you have to use them at all points, in the indexes, the deck estimation and the division.
> I wanted to stay out of this but...
> When I see 24 running over 5 I immediately
> calculate it as +5 (rounding 4.8 to 5
> decks).At this TC I will automatically split
> 10s against 5-6 and stand 16 vs 9.
You're not supposed to round in the I18- philosophy because their indices are floored.Actually Norm should have told you that.
Using another language doesn't give you the right to become impolite. You should watch your language!
Francis Salmon
> Using another language doesn't give you the
> right to become impolite. You should watch
> your language!
1- I will not discuss Blackjack with you since you are WAY from the right track.
2- I used french in a polite way because I believed it was your first language. If not sorry BUT if you really wait for me to be impolite, you have no clue how ugly this can become. Fortunately some people on this board are fluently speaking french an can testify that my post was in fact very polite and tactful.
> If you are going to use
> decimals, you have to use them at all
> points, in the indexes, the deck estimation
> and the division.
This is utter nonsense. Norm, you may tell your I18 users how they have to calculate their TC but leave it up to me how I calculate mine. Having been a professional player for many years, I know every possible shortcut to get a fairly precise result .Nobody would ever divide by tenth of decks because nobody can estimate so precisely and anyway the TC doesn't change significantly whether you divide by 4.9 or 5.1.Even dividing by full decks you'll usually get decimals in your results as in my example.
When you conceive an index as a point, it will be valid for any method of TC-calculation but of course it will be more efficient with more TC-precision.
Francis Salmon
> 1- I will not discuss Blackjack with you
> since you are WAY from the right track.
Typical sentence of somebody who has no argument
> 2- I used french in a polite way because I
> believed it was your first language. If not
> sorry BUT if you really wait for me to be
> impolite, you have no clue how ugly this can
> become. Fortunately some people on this
> board are fluently speaking french an can
> testify that my post was in fact very polite
> and tactful.
Let me laugh. First, in French you will never use the second person singular with somebody you don't know personnally, especially if you tell this person off.Second, your tone was anything else but respectful.
Who are you to talk to me like that?.You were not even taking part in the discussion and I don't know you at all.
Francis Salmon
> How good are the indices in Wong's
> Professional Blackjack, 1981 ed. (rounded)
> and 1994 ed. truncated? Is there much to be
> gained by generating new floored indices?
There are some errors with Wong's numbers, but, as an ensemble, I'd say they are quite good. I can't quantify the difference from using floored indices, because, among other things, it would depend on a) the number of indices actually used, b) the game being played, and c) the spread used.
Don
> In fact, it's very simple: I run my program
> through a loop with TC-increments of 0.1.
And the TC is calculated how? To the exact card remaining? If so, is that the accuracy you claim to use when playing?
> The
> program prints out the TC and the EV's for
> standing and splitting in a particular
> situation.
With what kind of deck subsets? Just the ones you feel like creating? Very, very inaccurate methodology!
> The point where the EV for standing becomes
> higher than the one for hitting is the
> index. That's all.
Would that it be that simple. Francis, you have been deluding yourself for many years. We'd like to disabuse you of your erroneous methodology, but I sense you're happy, so best of luck to you.
Don
> Let me laugh. First, in French you will
> never use the second person singular with
> somebody you don't know personnally,
> especially if you tell this person
> off.
Ha! Now, I have to give you French lessons, as well?? You will ABSOLUTELY use the "tu" form with complete strangers, in the very exact situation of telling them off! When you hurl epithets at strangers, do you say, "Ta gueule!" or "Votre gueule!"? Do you say, "Va te faire foutre," or "Allez vous faire foutre"? Do you say, ... well, you get the idea, don't you?
Don
Your remarks show me that you don't know the "typical deck methodology". I won't answer you any more questions as you just use the information against me. Just ask Cacarulo. He knows the method very well and says it's "very accurate in most cases".
Francis Salmon
Sorry, I was just trying to help you going out of this without looking like a moron. In any way it was meant to hurt the greatest of all, King Francis.
Hope you will forgive the stupidity of an inexperienced player like me. Keep the good work, you are always a reference to me.
G Man
> Your remarks show me that you don't know the
> "typical deck methodology". I
> won't answer you any more questions as you
> just use the information against me. Just
> ask Cacarulo. He knows the method very well
> and says it's "very accurate in most
> cases".
You'll forgive me if I don't hang on every word you wrtie. That's why I asked you to repeat the method you use. I've known the "typical-deck methodology" since before you ever held a card in your hand. It is, of course, just a simple approximation to more accurate techniques, so to say that that's what you use and then to try to impress us with your decimals is just plain silly. You over-complicate matters in one area and then "compensate" by oversimplifying in another. Makes little sense.
Don
The concept of ?representative subsets? has been around since at least 1981. It is a good short-cut for approximations. It has been rejected by nearly every BJ researcher that has bothered to comment and is absurd on its face. But, the concept that you can estimate remaining cards by an integer number of remaining decks and then use that divisor to create a result accurate to a greater degree than the original number is wild. Everyone knows that the result of an algorithm cannot be more accurate than the constituents of the equation.
I had an insane Physics teacher in tenth grade. But he said something that has always stuck. If you express a number with more digits of significance than you know are valid; it is not more accurate ? it is wrong.
You cannot take estimates and turn them into results more accurate than the estimates. Or as you once said to me - On ne saurait faire d'une buse un epervier.
www.Blackjack-Scams.com
I have a feeling we're turning in circles so this will be my last post on the subject.I don't think the word "silly" is a fair qualification of what I'm doing. You cannot praise Cacarulo to heaven and then ignore what he said:"very accurate in most cases".One of the rare exceptions and the only significant one was the index for the play 15v10 which showed an error of 0.4.
You accuse me of simplifying and then complicating but you're doing just the same in opposit direction. First you have a team elaborate the index with utmost precision and then you make whole numbers out of it.This produces an inherent error of up to 0.5 because the indices won't please you and sit right on the whole numbers.
I don't say that this amounts to very much and it's probably wise not to scare off beginners with decimal. But don't ever say my indices are less accurate than yours. This is simply not true.
Francis Salmon
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks