Underlying Reason for Floating Advantage

**angle_sh00ter** · 11-20-2018, 04:29 PM

I think u may have a comprehension issue. I never anywhere stated that we can assume anything about the composition.

In any case as mentioned in my last post, Ive realised where i was going wrong.

Enjoy your travels!

**peterlee** · 11-20-2018, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by DSchles

None of the above!

Don

TC10 at the upper half shoe, and TC10 at the bottom half shoe, the ratios of 7,8,9 are not the same
Yes, it is a factor to produce FA.
Also insurance EV are different.
+++
Insurance EV estimated by HiLo, is not linear.

**Three** · 11-21-2018, 08:36 AM

It seems at least Don think I believe he is wrong. I never said that and don't disagree with him. I disagree with starting a proof with an assumption and feeling anything but reducing to a falsehood proves anything. I know Don doesn't think he is basing anything on an assumption. I think what I am calling an assumption is most likely right but I am hesitant to call it a fact. At one time in the ancient past we needed to call it a fact to come to a final absolute on this. Today we don't need to do that. We can assess the actual situation from a counters perspective that bets and plays exactly the same as a basic strategist and collect a boatload of count related data that is useful for the counter about TC at varying depths in the process. Since most people use Hilo, I suggested a Hilo counter. From a counters perspective the results of what I suggested will be interesting. As far as the question at hand goes we will finally confirm what Don has said with absolutes rather than something that may be an assumption.

I know basic strategists think the first hand is the worst and the end of the shoe is best, but I know others that feel the opposite. But we know what those observations are worth. As a counter we can see why that might be. In the beginning of the shoe the RC is always 0, but at the end of the shoe the TC range is wide and varied. But from a basic strategists perspective it doesn't make any sense because there is no count. He doesn't know that his chances are any different but we know things are not the same. Don's assumption is both are right. Things are quite different but things are also the same. I understand his logic and think he is right, but I have no proof it is fact. Maybe it is my mathematical background, but I am a skeptic until something is proven. No mathematician can accept a proof that includes anything that isn't absolute fact. While I agree with Don's "assumption", I hesitate to call it fact. I tried to make that clear but apparently at least Don didn't get that. If Don didn't get it I am sure he isn't the only one. If DogHand does the sim it will have a lot of interesting data for counters and also prove this thing one way or the other. My money is on Don is right, but that is always almost a sure thing, especially concerning BJ. Pretty much everything else because Don is smart enough to be quiet when he isn't an authority on something. That is a rare quality.

**Optimus Prime** · 11-24-2018, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by angle_sh00ter

In any case as mentioned in my last post, Ive realised where i was going wrong.

So you say, right before you re-state your wrong assumption.

I told my 8-year-old about this thread and your 3-decks-shuffled-together theory. Even the 8 year old immediately understood that you were wrong and why.

If you can’t see the difference between a 52-card sequence selected from several decks shuffled together and a single deck of cards by itself (as an 8 year old can), then please at least take other people’s word for it until you’re able to figure it out for yourself.

**angle_sh00ter** · 11-24-2018, 03:49 PM

Yeah I never anywhere stated that I thought 52 cards taken randomly is the same as a single deck of cards.

I said (in as many words) that i didnt believe slugs of differing sizes were completely equivalent and provided my logic. I believed that there are properties and effects that differ depending on the size of the slug of cards. I still dont think its anywhere near as simple as you are pretending it to be.

Afterall, adhering to your flawless logic it doesnt make sense that playing with 2 decks should change the house edge compared to playing with 1 deck. In fact why dont u try and explain to me what is exactly behind that?