> Short answer: no.
> See BJA3 for all the values. FA doesn't really kick in
> until beyond 5 decks.
> Don
Were I wrong that there were some value 4.5 to 5D already??? Table 6.18A EV was 3.83 when TC >= 5, better than .00 D to 4.5D's 3.02???
> Short answer: no.
> See BJA3 for all the values. FA doesn't really kick in
> until beyond 5 decks.
> Don
Were I wrong that there were some value 4.5 to 5D already??? Table 6.18A EV was 3.83 when TC >= 5, better than .00 D to 4.5D's 3.02???
> Were I wrong that there were some value 4.5 to 5D
> already??? Table 6.18A EV was 3.83 when TC >= 5,
> better than .00 D to 4.5D's 3.02???
See p. 79, "Summary of findings." It would be a good idea to read the entire text, without looking at just the charts. All the answers are there, but you mustn't look for shortcuts.
Don
> See p. 79, "Summary of findings." It would
> be a good idea to read the entire text, without
> looking at just the charts. All the answers are there,
> but you mustn't look for shortcuts.
> Don
What is the causality of floating advantage?
You are the EXPERT of FA, aren't you?
> What is the causality of floating advantage?
> You are the EXPERT of FA, aren't you?
I'm trying to lead you there, but you seem reticent to go:
BJA3: Pp. 68-71. Do you not have the book? It's four pages of text, so not so easy to simply summarize here.
Don
> BJA3: Pp. 68-71. Do you not have the book? It's four
> pages of text, so not so easy to simply summarize
> here.
> Don
Thanks for your reply.
on page 70, paragraph "Eureka!....."
Is that your EXPLANATION?
> I'm trying to lead you there, but you seem reticent to
> go:
> BJA3: Pp. 68-71. Do you not have the book? It's four
> pages of text, so not so easy to simply summarize
> here.
> Don
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?
> 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
> 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.
> 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.
blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects2.htm
Maybe it won't!
Don
> 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.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks