That's actually a quote of me, but anyone who was following understands that you're talking to Dog Hand.
I don't think the linearity of EORs was so much assumed but forgotten. Conventional counting systems utilize the average EOR (ie. take a linear approach) but often times these EORs are misinterpreted to mean that your first 3 removed has the same affect as the twentieth 3 removed and that the EORs are static. It's just that the way information is processed by linear counts doesn't require its users or designers to acknowledge that EORs are dynamic, so the fact of the matter is often lost.
T3, you would probably know more about this than me or most of the posters on this website. I would imagine than even just the EORs for 1st, 2nd, ..., nth card are also partial generalizations since EORs interact with each other. The twentieth 3 removed might have a slightly different EOR when there has already been ten 8s removed compared to thirty 8s removed. Do you think that such interactions of EORs are important?
Like I have been going on lately, perhaps we should continue such a discussion in a new thread (perhaps in the probability forum). I just felt like the earlier part of this post belongs here because it directly refers to a post here and I didn't want to split the post.
Bookmarks