I said "just about anyone". I did not say every single person could.Originally Posted by Three
Carla who had no prior counting experience keeps both KO and AA89mTc in her head, no problem. I also showed HL with AA78mTc to another counter I meet (he refuses to give up HL) and he told me with a little practice he was able to keep both counts.
I am sorry to hear you cannot keep both counts.
Unlike you, bjanalyst is performing a rhetorical device called "Just Asking Questions"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Pay attention to these:
"The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers) and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations). It should be noted that accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well. Asking questions in and of itself is not invalid. "
"The purpose of this argument method is to keep asking leading questions to attempt to influence spectators' views, regardless of whatever answers are given. The term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. Additionally, this tactic is a way for a crank to escape the burden of proof behind extraordinary claims."
"Sealioning involves jumping into a conversation with endless polite, reasonable questions and demands for answers, usually of entry-level topics far below the actual conversation (e.g. "please prove sexism exists"). This tactic differs little from harassment; instead of discussion, the point is to derail discussion, receive criticism (for their ignorance) so as to look like a victim, or to make someone feel overwhelmed and quit talking. It is comparable to running a filibuster and preventing anything getting done. The nature of Twitter makes it particularly easy to sealion -- since everything is extremely compressed.
A particularly toxic thing about sealioning is that people who are genuine newbies asking serious questions are easy to mistake for sealions."
Asking questions in of itself is a legitimate device used for discovering truth via public discourse. However, abuse of asking questions in order to frame a specific view a legitimate or even truthful in and of itself is intellectual dishonesty.
You (Three) lack brevity. I can attest to that. While "going into detail" is nice, it is preferred i.f.f the person asking for details is sincere. Then it is completely reasonable and expected to give the full answer.
bjanalyst is simply trying to derail public discourse. He makes a claim that his system outperforms HOII(w/ ASC?) without proof. He is attempting to shift the burden of proof by asking you prove him wrong using his Correlation Coefficients. You can't, as it is unreasonable to assume that CC's demonstrate system superiority as opposed to Monte Carlo simulation, the preferred benchmarking tool to lay out claims. When confronted, bjanalyst blasts the forum with posts repeating ad nauseam the same claim and claiming that his character is under attack.
bjanalysts claim that he has a simulation commissioned by the very own Gronbog automatically dismisses him from current critique of his system as it is in the works so we should essentially "shut up!" This is false because he is asking that we dismiss his burden of proof and lay it upon Gronbog. Gron is simply the purveyor of data, not the claimant.
Nothing wrong with asking questions; especially if someone is making extra-ordinary claims. Either that, invoke Hitchen's Razor and dismiss all claims made without evidence as bullshit.
As I have said before: My speculation is that the systems performs a few points above High Low and far below HOII w/ ASC. This is speculation on my limited understanding of the hard data associated with multiple systems and the limited scope of what I have gathered from Theory of Blackjack.
Do you even try to read the posts people make? If so your reading comprehension is really bad.
My posts were quite short. I told you I keep two balanced counts that are much more difficult to keep than what you do (because of near 100% count overlap and multilevel counts). In other words many ranks are counted positive in one count and negative in the other. This count overlap opens more opportunities for advanced play and making very accurate decisions. The quoted statement is entirely inaccurate. Adding a third balanced count would present lots of problems for me. One of which is being able to keep the third balanced counts at the same time. Most of the other problems would come from trying to get the most out of the extra information, requiring too many iterations in a sim, and too much software updates for the likely gain.
Most of what I do now in BJ doesn't require custom software. Adding a third dimension to data collected and using a linear simulator would really limit the potential use of the information gathered or getting useful sim data. In other words it wouldn't be worth it. It would be worth a lot more with the custom simulator's results but the difference wouldn't be worth all the effort required at every level from keeping the counts, to using all the information gathered in the casino, and doing the software development followed by the research that would allow you to use the information to its fullest potential. If I go to all the trouble to keep and use a third count I don't want to just scratch the surface of the potential gain from adding a third count.
Last edited by Three; 01-02-2019 at 02:29 PM.
I got your email! I replied and gave you everything that I think you need. Any questions just email me back.
But now that I know you have my correct email and it does not go to spam and now I have your email, there is no longer any need to notifiy through this thread that you sent me an email nor for me to notify you that I sent you an email.
We are now in touch!
I would like to thank you once again for agreeing to do these sims so everyone can see the results.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-02-2019 at 06:46 PM.
The software changes have been completed and tested. As is typical for software, the testing took longer to complete than the actual changes. The Sims are now underway. Expect a few more days for them to finish and for me to consolidate the results.
Great news. Thanks!!
I sent you an email on how your sims were going before I checked to see if you posted anything online. Sorry about that.
By the way I subscribed to this website site for one year so I now have access to all forums.
Thanks again for your hard work.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks