> on page 70, paragraph "Eureka!...."
> You claim, at one-deck level, something unexpected
> will happen.
> But, maybe, that assumption is contradictory to the
> concept of Shannon's entropy?
I wish I knew where you were trying to go with all of this. I don't understand your comments. I've pointed you to Griffin's findings, my findings, John Gwynn's findings, and Wong's findings, all of which say the same thing.
What is your problem?
Don
blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects2.htm
Maybe it won't!
Don
> I wish I knew where you were trying to go with all of
> this. I don't understand your comments. I've pointed
> you to Griffin's findings, my findings, John Gwynn's
> findings, and Wong's findings, all of which say the
> same thing.
> What is your problem?
> Don
OK.
your theory will survive forever, because it lacks falsifiability.
I was expecting clear explanation of what is cause, what is effect.
I don't know very much about Shannon, because I'm not a Bell lab man.
Bell lab's Werthamar would give more meaningful comment, or
Shannon's friend Ed Thorp would.
But in my very poor understanding, as penetration goes very deep,
uncertainty level will be reduced.
Maybe, your word "findings" is confusing data and theory.
> blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects2.htm
> Maybe it won't!
> Don
If you mean, data generated by 3-decades-old Intel 286 CPU are a little old,
I agree. and maybe it's equally true to theories based on those data.
anyway, I show you my idea.
Let
D:total deck number
t/(52D):depth of shoe
r:RC before round
r+a:RC after the round
n:number of cards used at the round
assumption 1: "Brownian Bridge" can be used as model for the movement of RC.
assumption 2: EV of the game will be the function of expected value of a/n and variance of a/n.
assumption 3: optimal playing indices will be function of expected value of a/n and variance of a/n.
assumption 4: E(a/n) will be equivalent to TC/52
assumption 5: Var(a/n) will be the function of r, n, t, and 52D.
investigation of these functions will include the answer to floating advantage.
> But in my very poor understanding, as penetration goes
> very deep,
> uncertainty level will be reduced.
Who said the contrary? This is probably the basics of the floating advantage.
You have a nice handle, you brought Shannon's therory in the discussion but you don't even know what it means...
What's the point you're trying to make?
> Who said the contrary? This is probably the basics of
> the floating advantage.
> You have a nice handle, you brought Shannon's therory
> in the discussion but you don't even know what it
> means...
> What's the point you're trying to make?
Sorry, now I have no interest in that sort of thing.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks