Francis Salmon: I thought the times of the Inquisition were over

[Francis Salmon]

It was several centuries ago that Galileo Galilei was forced to publicly revoke his theory that the earth was surrounding the sun rather than the reverse.The by then almighty Catholic Church saw her authority challenged and this couldn't be tolerated.Of course the official version was that they had to protect the members of their community who might have to go to hell for falling for such an illbelief.
Don Schlesinger has openly vowed to discredit me personnally by all means in order to "protect our readers against the harmful theory of decimal indices".They might be tempted to take up the terrible burden of memorizing these indices for just a few cents more per hour,what a catastrophy! Or they might learn even more indices than the I18 which will almost certainly lead to an overload of their activ-memory.In the final stage their heads will simply explode.
Schlesinger's campaign is a serious matter because it violates ethical principles to which this site (I still think) is committed. I expect the management to take swift action.

Francis Salmon

[Norm Wattenberger]

by every believer in progression systems. I am serious. They always like to bring up Galileo. Galileo was right and not believed, therefore you must be right since you are not believed. And progressins must be right. Funny thing is that Einstein proved Galileo wrong anyhow The Earth no more goes around the Sun than the Sun goes around the Earth. And the progression players all say sims don't work when sims prove them wrong. Same as you.

Francis, you can believe what you wish. But, no one agrees with your arguments here and no one agrees when you argue on bj21 either.

State your position. No one has stopped you despite the fact that we all know you are wrong. But please don't compare yourself to a man faced with torture and execution.

[Parker]

I have the utmost respect for you, as I do for anyone who makes his living playing the game. You are certainly free to continue to use your decimal indices till hell freezes over, if that will make you happy.

However, claiming that this will result in any significant gain in EV is just plain wrong. Most people would require additional effort in order to memorize such indices, and this effort is wholly unnecessary.

If you have some hard evidence to the contrary, such as a sim, we'd love to see it. However, as long as you continue to espouse the same tired arguments as you did when we first had this discussion on another forum several years ago, don't take offense when someone calls you on it. We do indeed have an obligation to protect our readers from disinformation, whether you like it or not.

[Titan5]

I consider myself as a student in the field of blackjack science. Over the years I spent more time studying and analyzing blackjack than actually playing in the casinos. The idea of using decimal precision HiLo counting suggested by Francis is not fundamentally wrong in my opinion and I don?t consider it as representing misinformation. It is not fair to compare it with any of the useless progression systems. The argument seems to be how much improvement this decimal indices will provide. Is it significant or not? We all know that among all popular counting systems the EV differences are small. You can claim one counting system is better because of the EV gain is 0.003 more, which to some people is significant. Then there will be other arguments against it because of the difficulty or the complexity of the counting system or some other reasons. I am not interested in getting into these arguments but I am interested in any new ideas which would be thought-provoking such as Francis? idea. That?s why I continue reading the discussions in different BJ forums including this one.
The key to make big money in playing blackjack seems to be in the area of the betting strategy instead of the playing strategy. I have studied multi-deck BJ games (about 75% penetration) and have noticed that the overall EV at any point before placing the bet (the start of the next round) hovers around -0.03 to +0.03 depending on the card composition in the remaining shoe. You make money by betting very big when the overall EV is +0.03 and betting minimum(or wong out) on negative EVs. Fortunately most counting systems including HiLo will have higher positive true counts corresponding to higher overall EVs. The advanced playing strategies using counting indices beyond the basic strategy seem to be less important. On my educated guess it will improve your EV by probably 0.01 or less. So if you flat bet all the time (not using betting strategy) the most you can achieve is probably gaining only +0.01 advantage. You cannot ignore this one percent EV gain. That?s why you learn the advanced playing strategies. That also shows how difficult to gain a small advantage on BJ games. Francis? idea of decimal indices will improve this +0.01 by a fraction. So, does it worth the effort? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You make your judgment.

[Francis Salmon]

> I have the utmost respect for you, as I do for anyone
> who makes his living playing the game. You are
> certainly free to continue to use your decimal indices
> till hell freezes over, if that will make you happy.

You might respect me but you allow other exponents of this site to ride outrageous personal attacks on me.Check over Don's revealing post "Answer to Cyrus and Hard 8".And right above Norm put's me in the same category as the progressionists. Do you really think this is compatible with your ethical principles.

> However, claiming that this will result in any
> significant gain in EV is just plain wrong.

Where did I make such a statement? I only made specific claims in regard to the costs of rounding and they are irrefutable.

> people would require additional effort in order to
> memorize such indices, and this effort is wholly
> unnecessary.

If it's the policy of this site to discourage any additonal effort by the player you should combat all multilevel systems with the same ferocity.People can remember phone numbers consisting of over 10 positions. Why should it take any effort to remember double digit indices? What is necessary or desirable should be left to the user to decide.

> If you have some hard evidence to the contrary, such
> as a sim, we'd love to see it.

As I said: What is necessary or desirable is relative. It can therefore not be proven.
Sims can always be contested,combinatorial analysis can't.What I've posted over the years on the subject should be evidence enough.Besides I'm the living proof that my system works.

> We do indeed have an obligation to
> protect our readers from disinformation, whether you
> like it or not.

If you accuse me of disinformation you should be able to pin me down on such a quote but you will only find statements where I admit that the effect on win rate is only marginal.
Unfortunately,Don has been successful in making you believe the contrary.

He is admittedly trying to destroy my reputation by any means and if you don't stop him, the reputation of this site will take a serious blow.

Francis Salmon

[college kid]

How did Einstien prove Galileo wrong? (I don't know exactly what Galileo was trying to prove or say--I am arguing that Einstein did not prove Galileo wrong but rather did indeed show that the Earth goes around the Sun.) Though I don't know Galileo, I do know relativity, and the Sun, as massive as it is, is indeed making the Earth go around it via it's gravity. And relative to other stars and galaxies, the Sun is moving much less than the Earth, so I think I can safely argue that the Earth is indeed going around the sun. So even though within the Earth-Sun frame of reference we can't technically say one is moving around the other, once we have a more accurate picture, I think we can safely say the Earth goes around the Sun. Of course, it's late, I'm tired, and it's been a few years since I took the gravitation class, though I don't think I used anything I learned in it to present my argument here.

Also, what is this theory of decimal indicies? You say it's a progression system, but it sounds like it's just more accurate index numbers, though I think rounding isn't costing a whole lot. (And why not just use a more accurate system like the UAPC or Hi-Opt 2 before you start worrying about decimals for the numbers!!!)

> by every believer in progression systems. I am
> serious. They always like to bring up Galileo. Galileo
> was right and not believed, therefore you must be
> right since you are not believed. And progressins must
> be right. Funny thing is that Einstein proved Galileo
> wrong anyhow The Earth no more goes around the Sun
> than the Sun goes around the Earth. And the
> progression players all say sims don't work when sims
> prove them wrong. Same as you.

> Francis, you can believe what you wish. But, no one
> agrees with your arguments here and no one agrees when
> you argue on bj21 either.

> State your position. No one has stopped you despite
> the fact that we all know you are wrong. But please
> don't compare yourself to a man faced with torture and
> execution.

[Norm Wattenberger]

I did not compare your ideas to progressionists. I compared your argument to that of progressionists. The fact is that you become very nasty when someone disgrees with you. You've called me a dozen names and claimed that I know nothing, my results are grotesque, my sims are all invalid, and on and on and on. No one has stopped you from posting. But, we all disagree with your claim that decimal indexes significantly affect the game of BJ. No Spanish Inquisition, no torture rack, no thumbscrews, no guillotine. And

Sims can always be contested,combinatorial analysis can't.

That is patently ridiculous. Of course CA can be disputed. Both in methodology and in practice. The methodology you use involves representative subsets and infinite decks. Unlike truly representative CAs, both add errors. I can and will dispute it.

[pm]

Francis, I have to ask you this. It seems that everyone here, including yourself, is in agreement that decimal indices have only a very marginal impact on the winrate. Why are you so excited about them then? Apparently you've been carrying on about them for years. I mean, why?

Also, what is this argument even about? If everyone, including yourself, now agrees that decimal indices don't add much value, then what exactly is the argument here?

[Parker]

> Also, what is this theory of decimal indicies? You say
> it's a progression system, but it sounds like it's
> just more accurate index numbers, though I think
> rounding isn't costing a whole lot. (And why not just
> use a more accurate system like the UAPC or Hi-Opt 2
> before you start worrying about decimals for the
> numbers!!!)

Norm said nothing of the sort. He merely pointed out (correctly) that the Galileo/Inquisition argument is frequently trotted out by defenders of progression systems.

Furthermore, there is no "theory of decimal indices." We are merely discussing carrying out the index calculation to a decimal place, which in reality may or may not even be more "accurate."

It is always a good idea to read the entire thread before jumping into the middle of it. :-)

[Norm Wattenberger]

> How did Einstien prove Galileo wrong? (I don't know
> exactly what Galileo was trying to prove or say--I am
> arguing that Einstein did not prove Galileo wrong but
> rather did indeed show that the Earth goes around the
> Sun.) Though I don't know Galileo, I do know
> relativity, and the Sun, as massive as it is, is
> indeed making the Earth go around it via it's
> gravity.....

You're using Newtonian physics. Einstein said there is no center of the Universe. The math doesn't care - heliocentric or geocentric, the relative apparent paths of the planets remain the same. Using the Earth as a reference point, the Sun goes around the Earth and the other planets around the Sun. The Sun is no more the center of the Universe than the Earth. Both are parochial views.

> Also, what is this theory of decimal indicies? You say
> it's a progression system, but it sounds like it's
> just more accurate index numbers, though I think
> rounding isn't costing a whole lot. (And why not just
> use a more accurate system like the UAPC or Hi-Opt 2
> before you start worrying about decimals for the
> numbers!!!)

You got me But, I did not say it is a progression system. I said the argument that once upon the time some people thought the Earth was the center of the Universe, or the Earth was flat, is the type of argument that system sellers like to use to claim they might be right.

[Francis Salmon]

If someone on the progression page used the same comparison with the inquisition and Galilei then that's a pure coincidence.I have lost nothing on the progression page and I don't see why you make a connection between my ideas and theirs. By the way,Galilei (Galileo is just his first name)was Italian and the whole story took place in Rome,not in Spain and there was no torture.This just for your education .

If I had responded to your personal attacks in the same way I would long be barred here .

You vowed to dispute my analysis.What are you waiting for. To make it very clear ,I repeat my claim:
In the situation A,8 v 5 at a TC of exactly +1, doubling which is the play called for by the I18 has a penalty of roughly $2 on a $200 stake.
Please,don't deviate and don't back out with cheap excuses.The readers will know what this means.

Francis Salmon

[Parker]

> You might respect me but you allow other exponents of
> this site to ride outrageous personal attacks on
> me.Check over Don's revealing post "Answer to
> Cyrus and Hard 8".And right above Norm put's me
> in the same category as the progressionists. Do you
> really think this is compatible with your ethical
> principles.

Yes.

> Where did I make such a statement? I only made
> specific claims in regard to the costs of rounding and
> they are irrefutable.

Sez you.

> If it's the policy of this site to discourage any
> additonal effort by the player you should combat all
> multilevel systems with the same ferocity.People can
> remember phone numbers consisting of over 10
> positions. Why should it take any effort to remember
> double digit indices? What is necessary or desirable
> should be left to the user to decide.

No argument here, but the user needs to be able to make an informed decision. Memorizing decimal indices will require more effort than memorizing integers. The amount of additional effort will vary by individual. You obviously have no problem with it. However, the gain from such efforts, regardless of the amount of effort involved, is negligible. That effort could be better put to use in other areas.

> As I said: What is necessary or desirable is relative.
> It can therefore not be proven.
> Sims can always be contested,combinatorial analysis
> can't.What I've posted over the years on the subject
> should be evidence enough.Besides I'm the living proof
> that my system works.

You are the living proof that card counting works. The fact that you happen to use decimal indices is irrelevant. No one has said that it costs you anything, merely that the gains are insignificant.

> If you accuse me of disinformation you should be able
> to pin me down on such a quote but you will only find
> statements where I admit that the effect on win rate
> is only marginal.

You admit the gain is "marginal." We say it is insignificant or negligible. What is it again that we're arguing about?

> Unfortunately,Don has been successful in making you
> believe the contrary.

Huh? See above.

> He is admittedly trying to destroy my reputation by
> any means and if you don't stop him, the reputation of
> this site will take a serious blow.

Your reputation will survive, the site's reputation will survive, and life as we know it will continue. Have a nice day.

[Francis Salmon]

> Francis, I have to ask you this. It seems that
> everyone here, including yourself, is in agreement
> that decimal indices have only a very marginal impact
> on the winrate. Why are you so excited about them
> then? Apparently you've been carrying on about them
> for years. I mean, why?

That has been my way of playing since I turned professional and I'm very comfortable with it.Why should I deny my own system? I never brought the subject up myself. It was usually questions of readers about indices that triggered the discussions.

> Also, what is this argument even about? If everyone,
> including yourself, now agrees that decimal indices
> don't add much value, then what exactly is the
> argument here?

The main disagreement is about effort involved with these indices and personally I find it more complicated to use whole numbers because then you have to know whether the indexes are floored, truncated or rounded which is subject to change over time.Recurrent questions from readers show that there is some amount of confusion about this.
If decimal indices involve no additional effort - and this will be the case for somebody who uses them regularly then the gain - as marginal it may be - becomes again an argument.

Francis Salmon