BJ21.com Free Message Board
I don't follow to your conclusion
Posted By: DD' In Response To: Some simplification...and a criticism of attack discussions. (Clarke Cant)
Date: 17 Jan 02, 1:32 pm
In Response To: Some simplification...and a criticism of attack discussions. (Clarke Cant)
You see a shuffle. You presume all the cards are there. The cards behind the cut card are all those that were associated with 2 sections that were one deck each in the unobserved shoe. You have the counts for the other components of the original 1 deck sections, as you have played through them. You have the same sort of information for the remaining one deck section that is coming up, just before the
cutcard. Since you have been counting you also have the total points associated with the one deck section behind the cut card, and the section coming up.
What you have is the total number for the two sections together, if that is what you are saying. You do not know anything about each of them seperately. You know only their average value. The excess high or low cards that you predicted by counting the rest of the shoe could be in either of the two sections or equally distributed.
I don't know whether we agree so far or not. I'm just restating what you said above as I understand it.
With all of this information you should also have at least a partial solution for predicting how many points are in the last one deck that will be dealt versus how many points will be behind the cut-card.
I see no information that will help with such a solution or partial solution. I see a deficit or surplus that must be accounted for in the remainder of the shoe. I have no clue as to what portion is where.
I just think that alienated has just become confused under-fire as he tries to go over the various algebraic short-cuts that can be used. This is NOT A VALID discussion tactic clones. It is attacking into silence and orthodoxy.
I haven't seen any attacks myself. I've only seen valid questions about his claims. If I decide to put my money at risk using some strange ideas that I come up with I certainly hope that I'll get such "attacks" and that my theory can stand up to the scrutiny.
For example:Cacarulo was bitterly attacked over his original posts that resulted in the Catch-22 concept.
Cacarulo's claims have stood up to heavy scrutiny, he took all such scrutiny in stride, and he is now one of the most respected blackjack researchers out there. I don't see the problem. I always have a great deal of respect for his opinions. Alienated is a long way from making a logical argument, in my opinion. But I don't think he is being attacked by anyone simply for proposing something new. He has valid questions to answer. I think it would be most helpful if you stuck to the point rather than discussing Don, who has not posted anything in this thread, the trip risk equations, central limit theorem, and every other direction that you steer things.
It would be appreciated if your reply concerned the count of these unseen segments and what useful information you have gotten to predict where surpluses of high and low cards may be. The formation of the universe or other such topics can be discussed at a later time.
BJ21.com Free Message Board is maintained by Pi Yee Press