Zenfighter: I need your advice, Don

[Zenfighter]

Don

Trying to get stuff for a new DD?s article, I have found a serious rounding error in Griffin?s EoR?s for the utmost important illustrious 16 vs T (page 76). Have a look.

 

 

                 TOB 			Expanded 

 

A		-0.49*			-0.499204 

2		-0.29			-0.290299 

3		-0.80			-0.804234			 

4		-1.73			-1.72785 

5		-2.57			-2.56834 

6		 1.65			 1.64458 

7		-0.71			-0.710914 

8		-0.06			-0.0566701 

9		 0.55			 0.552391 

T		 1.12			 1.11513 

 

 

m		-0.45			-0.445861 

 

ss		19.1			19.054556 

 

Cksum		 0.03			-0.0000201 

 

 

 

 

As you can see, the checksums are conclusive and the ace is a bit off. My little contribution to the BJ Theory could be to rewrite again the full tables and publish them here at your site. Needless to say that without your advice and approval I wouldn?t. Do we need a 2nd EoR?s tables edition?

Sincerely

Z

[Don Schlesinger]

> Don
> Trying to get stuff for a new DD?s article,
> I have found a serious rounding error in
> Griffin?s EoR?s for the utmost important
> illustrious 16 vs T (page 76). Have a look.
>
> TOB Expanded
> A -0.49* -0.499204
> 2 -0.29 -0.290299
> 3 -0.80 -0.804234
> 4 -1.73 -1.72785
> 5 -2.57 -2.56834
> 6 1.65 1.64458
> 7 -0.71 -0.710914
> 8 -0.06 -0.0566701
> 9 0.55 0.552391
> T 1.12 1.11513
>
> m -0.45 -0.445861
> ss 19.1 19.054556
> Cksum 0.03 -0.0000201
>
>
> As you can see, the checksums are conclusive
> and the ace is a bit off. My little
> contribution to the BJ Theory could be to
> rewrite again the full tables and publish
> them here at your site. Needless to say that
> without your advice and approval I wouldn?t.
> Do we need a 2nd EoR?s tables edition?

I say go for it! The problem is that, even though the individual effects are all "off" a little, the net results, when rounded to two decimals (both m and ss) are the same. So, what we have is a situation where, if you make enough small errors, they tend to cancel one another just enough to give a correct answer for the bottom line.

I'd be honored to have your new work published here, and we will archive it for the ages!

Thanks.

Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

I think an updated table would be valuable. Several years back someone faxed me pages from different versions of TOB and I believe there were a few changes in the EOR tables. Hardly surprising and certainly doesn?t reflect on the greatness of the work. But, everything needs a fresh look now and again.

> Don
> Trying to get stuff for a new DD?s article,
> I have found a serious rounding error in
> Griffin?s EoR?s for the utmost important
> illustrious 16 vs T (page 76). Have a look.
>
> TOB Expanded
> A -0.49* -0.499204
> 2 -0.29 -0.290299
> 3 -0.80 -0.804234
> 4 -1.73 -1.72785
> 5 -2.57 -2.56834
> 6 1.65 1.64458
> 7 -0.71 -0.710914
> 8 -0.06 -0.0566701
> 9 0.55 0.552391
> T 1.12 1.11513
>
> m -0.45 -0.445861
> ss 19.1 19.054556
> Cksum 0.03 -0.0000201
>
>
> As you can see, the checksums are conclusive
> and the ace is a bit off. My little
> contribution to the BJ Theory could be to
> rewrite again the full tables and publish
> them here at your site. Needless to say that
> without your advice and approval I wouldn?t.
> Do we need a 2nd EoR?s tables edition?
> Sincerely
> Z

[Zenfighter]

However, for doubling and splitting removal effects the amount of computer time necessary to carry out the calculations exactly would have been excessive; in these situations the removal effects were estimated by judicious alteration of infinite deck probabilities TOB

As you may guess, today we have refined and new CA analyzers, with computers running at 2.4 MHz or even higher. So expect differences for these two actions and don?t shake your head in disbelief, please.

For the hit/stand ones, I?m forced to agree with you. The differences will be pecata minuta.

The initial benchmark will be two tables per month, here at the Theory Page. That?s 6 months. Isn?t it?

Looking for a proper balance between work, playing sessions and wife! :-)

Thanks for your encouragement, Don. I will try my very best. Granted.

Sincerely

Z

[Sun Runner]

... exist in a world I can only imagine.

You all look for answers to questions I didn't even no existed or knew needed answering!!

I am happy enough to stand by and soak it all up though.

Thanks as always.

[Cacarulo]

> Don
> Trying to get stuff for a new DD?s article,
> I have found a serious rounding error in
> Griffin?s EoR?s for the utmost important
> illustrious 16 vs T (page 76). Have a look.
>
> TOB Expanded
> A -0.49* -0.499204
> 2 -0.29 -0.290299
> 3 -0.80 -0.804234
> 4 -1.73 -1.72785
> 5 -2.57 -2.56834
> 6 1.65 1.64458
> 7 -0.71 -0.710914
> 8 -0.06 -0.0566701
> 9 0.55 0.552391
> T 1.12 1.11513
>
> m -0.45 -0.445861
> ss 19.1 19.054556
> Cksum 0.03 -0.0000201
>
>
> As you can see, the checksums are conclusive
> and the ace is a bit off. My little
> contribution to the BJ Theory could be to
> rewrite again the full tables and publish
> them here at your site. Needless to say that
> without your advice and approval I wouldn?t.
> Do we need a 2nd EoR?s tables edition?

Hi ZF,

Are you calculating how much better is to draw "ONE AND ONLY ONE CARD" to the total in order to get these EoRs?

Sincerely,
Cac

PD: I'll post something later when I get some time.

[Cacarulo]

> Don
> Trying to get stuff for a new DD?s article,
> I have found a serious rounding error in
> Griffin?s EoR?s for the utmost important
> illustrious 16 vs T (page 76). Have a look.
>
> TOB Expanded
> A -0.49* -0.499204
> 2 -0.29 -0.290299
> 3 -0.80 -0.804234
> 4 -1.73 -1.72785
> 5 -2.57 -2.56834
> 6 1.65 1.64458
> 7 -0.71 -0.710914
> 8 -0.06 -0.0566701
> 9 0.55 0.552391
> T 1.12 1.11513
>
> m -0.45 -0.445861
> ss 19.1 19.054556
> Cksum 0.03 -0.0000201
>
>
> As you can see, the checksums are conclusive
> and the ace is a bit off. My little
> contribution to the BJ Theory could be to
> rewrite again the full tables and publish
> them here at your site. Needless to say that
> without your advice and approval I wouldn?t.
> Do we need a 2nd EoR?s tables edition?

You're right. I've got the same EoRs. Note that with more precision they do sum to zero.

A   = -0.49920432019655 

2   = -0.29029939249064 

3   = -0.80423375268803 

4   = -1.72785159473107 

5   = -2.56833717782804 

6   =  1.64458078431290 

7   = -0.71091391223717 

8   = -0.05667014139247 

9   =  0.55239050414233 

T   =  1.11513475077715 

m   = -0.44586077827162 

ss  = 19.05459098227328 

chk =  0.00000000000000

It seems that you've also adjusted the Ace's EoR by multiplying it by 48/47 in order to made them sum to zero (Griffin page 197).
Go ahead and post them!

BTW, these are the EoRs for 16vA. Here the Ten's EoR is multiplied by 36/35.

A    = -0.02276700042841 

2    = -0.92307464165572 

3    = -1.66237601715606 

4    = -2.52939528727475 

5    = -3.18176719078990 

6    = -1.43147747998166 

7    = -0.41293420384054 

8    =  0.53407031005843 

9    =  1.40155907101168 

T    =  2.05704061001422 

m    = 13.79580412469005 

ss   = 41.53246777147456 

chk  =  0.00000000000000

Sincerely,
Cac

[Zenfighter]

Cac!

I'll publish also a short bare bone guide for the folks here at DD. By the end of the week or so the full Hitting 17 -12 tables will be ready.
Sooner than expected. Maybe 3 or 4 months will suffice. Rsp = 4 is not a piece of cake,precisely. But the work can be done and I will.
When the times arrives you will have my e-mail anyway. You know how much I do appreciate your tips.

Sincerely

Z

[Zenfighter]