New iOS app shows real-time EVs as you play

[Norm]

I seem to have inadvertently gotten into a flame war with you calling me a liar

Yes, you seem to be repeatedly flaming and miss-characterizing my posts and mood as I give you information. This is now the third time that you say I've accused you of lying. I have done no such thing. You need to stop taking everything as an attack.

Are you saying that your code isn't multithreaded? I would be happy to give you some pointers about that if you wanted.

Yes, my code is multi-threaded. Just ran a speed test with Hi-OptII, with ace side-count, custom TC calculation, and heavy cover betting. Two billion hands in 57 seconds -- about 35 million a second. CPU topped out at 79 degrees, which is quite reasonable.

[Norm]

Also, can I assume that because you didn't take me up on my bet, that's a tacit agreement on your part that my EVs are correct?

Argumentum ex silentio. It is a logical fallacy to assume silence means something.

[tomker]

Yes, you seem to be repeatedly flaming and miss-characterizing my posts and mood as I give you information. This is now the third time that you say I've accused you of lying. I have done no such thing. You need to stop taking everything as an attack.

Sorry but I have already given you several examples of you telling me that I'm lying. But to reiterate briefly:

1. On 8/21 5:18 PM: Point #4, you told me I was only using 1 core to do my calculations. This is after I said my job ran 4 times faster on a 16 core machine vs. 4 core, meaning that I'm using all the cores.

2. On 8/21 6:16 PM: You told me that there is no such processor as the one I claimed to have used. (Although I never made the claim you thought I did.)

3. On 8/21 6:54 PM: You told me that it's statistically impossible for me to get the results that I'm claiming to get.

I understand there's a distinction between having a theory or belief and being corrected. That happens all the time when more knowledgable people correct less knowledgable people.

But if I state a fact like "I went to the baseball game" and you tell me I didn't, that means you're calling me a liar. And in these cases I'm stating information about things I've seen or done personally and you're telling me I'm wrong. That's no different than telling me that I didn't go to the hypothetical baseball game.

Please, let me know how you would characterize these interactions where you contradict my claims about things I've done personally or results I've seen personally?

[tomker]

... Everyone here knows just how elite Norm's expertise is in the industry as does anyone that has a history in blackjack software or systems. You might want to humble yourself a little ...

I think if you take a minute to review my posts you will see that I already have. Particularly my post at 5:44 PM yesterday where I told him I respected his software, and him, and apologized for any miscommunicated tone, and saying that I deferred to his experience.

All I have gotten on this thread for "humbling myself" and being polite are accusations that my claims about my software are lies.

(Which really makes no sense because anyone is free to download my software and simply check it out for themselves. I stand by it, and my claims, 100%.)

[tomker]

Argumentum ex silentio. It is a logical fallacy to assume silence means something.

Sure, that's why I asked.

Of course, if it's statistically impossible for my software to give correct EVs (as you claim), then it should only take you a couple of minutes to prove it and you make $50. But maybe you are well-off enough that $50 isn't worth a couple minutes of your time, in which case, congratulations.

[Norm]

1. On 8/21 5:18 PM: Point #4, you told me I was only using 1 core to do my calculations. This is after I said my job ran 4 times faster on a 16 core machine vs. 4 core, meaning that I'm using all the cores.

That is in no way calling you a liar.

2. On 8/21 6:16 PM: You told me that there is no such processor as the one I claimed to have used. (Although I never made the claim you thought I did.)

That is in no way calling you a liar.

3. On 8/21 6:54 PM: You told me that it's statistically impossible for me to get the results that I'm claiming to get.

And so it is. Again, that is not calling you a liar. You simply are running far, far, far too few hands, are quite likely using a poor RNG, and do not understand what standard error is.

Seriously, you cannot take every disagreement as an accusation of prevarication. You will find that you will disagree with people constantly on forums. That does not make you or them liars. When I want to call you a liar, I will make it very clear. But, even though you have falsely claimed that I called you a liar four times, I STILL am not calling this a lie.

[Norm]

Sure, that's why I asked.

Of course, if it's statistically impossible for my software to give correct EVs (as you claim), then it should only take you a couple of minutes to prove it and you make $50. But maybe you are well-off enough that $50 isn't worth a couple minutes of your time, in which case, congratulations.

Or maybe I don't have an iPhone or iPad. (I don't.) Or maybe I'm not stupid enough to take such a silly challenge. (I never take such challenges as every one I've seen take place has ended up in interminable argument.) Or, maybe I have already proved it to the satisfaction of the statiscally-aware present. (I believe I have as your claimed results fall into a range that is a tiny fraction of the standard error.)

[Three]

All I have gotten on this thread for "humbling myself" and being polite are accusations that my claims about my software are lies.

I don't recall ever seeing you being called a liar. A lie is an intentional falsehood or saying something you know is wrong. You can state false things without lying if you believe them to be true. By repeatedly telling Norm he called you a liar when he never did does not make you look good. All this he said she said stuff is tiresome and irrelevant. I am surprised nobody has purchased your software and did some comparing and commented on the speed and accuracy and other issues that would be relevant to any users from this site. The fact that nobody has spoken up yet is a gage as to how you are doing peddling your product. Usually even the dumbest Apps get some sales here and the buyers comment on the Apps. Stop being so defensive. You are reminding everyone of a temporarily banned member that twistz every comment into an attackk on him. Usually they are constructive criticisms intended on helping him but he is too busy being defensive to see it.

[tomker]

... That is in no way calling you a liar. ...

Norm, I respect your software, your obvious abilities, your opinions, and I recognize you as the authority on this subject.

But you must understand that I have my own dignity and if you say publicly that I lied about something, I'm going to take it seriously.

This case with using one core vs. multiple cores, this should be an obvious enough example to sort out. Yesterday at 4:22 PM I said that I ran a compute job on a 16-core machine in 1/4 the time of my home computer. The only way to reasonably interpret this statement is that my code is multithreaded. In black and white terms, it uses more than 1 core.

Then, at 5:18 PM, you say "I hope you realize that you are only using one core."

In other words, I make a claim that my software used > 1 core, and you tell me it only used 1 core. I don't know how else you (or anyone else) can possibly interpret this other than you saying that my claim was a lie.

[Norm]

In other words, I make a claim that my software used > 1 core, and you tell me it only used 1 core. I don't know how else you (or anyone else) can possibly interpret this other than you saying that my claim was a lie.

Then you will have a very tough time in the forum world. This is the polite forum.

[tomker]

... You are reminding everyone of a temporarily banned member that twistz every comment into an attackk on him. Usually they are constructive criticisms intended on helping him but he is too busy being defensive to see it.

When I see some constructive criticism I will happily take it to heart. I realize that I am relatively new to blackjack programming, having only started this year.

But now I'm sitting at my computer looking at simulation results in the window next to this one that Norm has declared statistically impossible. I don't know what you expect me to "construct" with this "constructive criticism."

How about this: for the first 10 people on this forum who download my app and send me their iTunes receipt for the "Ultimate version" upgrade, I will PayPal you a refund for the full purchase price plus tax, with the hope that one or two of you guys will check out the EVs and give me some feedback.

[tomker]

Or maybe I don't have an iPhone or iPad. (I don't.)

Sorry, it seemed like you were selling some iOS software. I see an ad banner at the top of this page (and other pages) for "Blackjack Vérité" and it says "apps for Android and iOS" and goes to your page where at the bottom somebody is claiming to distribute iOS software. I assumed that somebody was you since it's your web page, or that you were somehow associated with that person, but like you said about assumptions...

[darco77]

How about this: for the first 10 people on this forum who download my app and send me their iTunes receipt for the "Ultimate version" upgrade, I will PayPal you a refund for the full purchase price plus tax, with the hope that one or two of you guys will check out the EVs and give me some feedback.

Might be time to hire a sales/marketing guru. Perhaps one with some PR experience, as well.