I wasn't upset. It just wasn't clear that they were Griffin's thoughts and not yours. You send me looking for a quote from Griffin and I look for where you quoted Griffin. That is all.
Wow. I say that I don't disagree with him but I don't feel the phenomena is proven. Later I state in bold red letters, for those that skip longer posts, that Doghand's research will finally prove Don's assertion without the need for starting with an assumption that may or may not be true. And that in the process it will generate all kinds of useful information for the Hilo user to build upon. Then Don says I don't get it and disagree with him. I repeatedly said I didn't disagree with him but nothing was proven if it was based on an assumption. Reduction to a falsehood can disprove an assumption but starting with an assumption and building on it proves nothing. This is basic mathematical logic and Don knows it. Hell, everyone that got out of Junior High School should know it. So many things in BJ defy logic that I don't accept a flawed proof as proving anything. That never meant that I disagreed with Don or thought he would be proven wrong. I stayed I thought he would be proven right but I am still waiting to see actual proof rather than logic based on an assumption. Any good researcher would do the same if the resources exist to prove something without starting with assumptions.
Don, thank you for your patience. I don't have nearly the amount you do, but you remind me of why it is a virtue. I really appreciate and admire the effort you put and continue to put into explaining the maths of Blackjack.
I have trouble understanding how anyone could see it does not matter how many cards you grab off the top of a shoe. Forgive me for not reading everyone's posts; perhaps the err in their thinking is apparent in their posts. The house edge is the same no matter what random section you take, be it half a deck, one deck, or the whole thing. They're all subsets of the same shoe. Would it change the house edge on a shoe if the dealer, instead of dealing out of the shoe, instead took grabs of about a deck and pitched the game? No. It's still a damn shoe game. It matters not where you place the cut card.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Its actually funny because i know that what im asserting defies all logic. However i have my own logic for questioning whether there isn't more to the matter.
Let me try one last time to show my logic and please point out the places where i'm going astray.
Let's take 3 standard decks and shuffle them together real nice.
Let's now divide it into a pile of 52 random cards and a pile of 104 random cards.
So now we know nothing about the composition of the 2 piles except that they consist of cards randomly taken from the 3 original standard decks of cards.
We also know (for a given and identical % of 10s and aces per stack of cards) that playing from the shorter stack of cards will result in slightly more blackjacks than the other.
Finally, if we repeated this process 100 billion times over, what mathematical basis is there for believing that the larger stack will on average get a more favourable distribution of aces and tens such that it negates the effect mentioned above?
https://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects1.htm
I think you two might be mixing the cut card effect and the floating advantage into something that makes no sense. I still haven't read your posts in full, so I may be way off. I'm too busy with family and grinding tables. I'll go return to those. Happy Turkey day y'all.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Oh don't worry about replying I think I've just had my lightbulb moment!
There actually is a reason to believe the larger slug of cards will on average have a more favourable distribution of cards for blackjacks.
The smaller slug will more frequently contain no aces!
No, we fucking don't! We DON'T know the composition of the two stacks! We can't assert that the smaller stack will produce more natural due to the nature of the number of cards! You even asserted this:
Your words...not mine! We are *not* working with a balanced single deck and double deck set of cards here! We are working with a 3 deck set of cards, displaced as a 1D and DD. Nothing changes except that the 3D is split into two.So now we know nothing about the composition of the 2 piles except that they consist of cards randomly taken from the 3 original standard decks of cards.
It doesn't! You don't get it! The effect is still the same because we are *NOT* drawing from a 1D or DD game: we are drawing k cards from a 3D game. The 'effects' would be for that of a 3D game.Finally, if we repeated this process 100 billion times over, what mathematical basis is there for believing that the larger stack will on average get a more favourable distribution of aces and tens such that it negates the effect mentioned above?
Gabish?!
Bookmarks