Chebayev analysis---a call to ee majors and Hams who count!

Chebayev took the standard normal disribution as a model of random noise distributed over a mean. He proved that limits on the range or type of distributionn would result in a Fournier type series of sinusoidal outcome paths. That was used by economist Kondratiev, for his work, who modeled social and economic stress tolerance in an economy causing macro-economic wave patterns. Kondratiev was killed by Stalin in 1931 who alleged that such trivialized the Bolshevic revolution as just a bad capitalist downturn and not the start of a new socialist society.

Chebayev is most known however for showing how distributionn limits are models of resistance, capacitance and inductance, in electrical networks. Anyone who has been involved in filter design in Ham Radio or EE classwork has used these same equations.

Ruin equations also follow this same interchangeability. It is no more correct to say a properly derived ruin equation is better or worse than any other than it is to decide that nothing smaller than a 3 pole Chebayev filter should ever be used. Same math! In fact band pass rejection follows the same math exactly!

Lately ML and Cyrus have posted below using past ruin equation disputes between myself and DS as a card to play against any discent with their views. They promote an agenda of claiming: to disagree is wrong.

I appeal to past fellow ee majors and Hams who count and understand blackjack (sorry Frank, no!) for their comments which I am sure will excede mine, and my examples and explanations here. Alternatives abound and "one true path" is typically wrong for all. That is why I use the term: clones. Clones all have the same vulnerabilities for fluctuations, conditon changes and detection by the other side.

Stanford Wong has revised the posting standards to prevent actually posting such information, but it should be noted that you can take any book, such as BJA or BJA II, and from the advice sugested, come up with exactly the game rules, shoe size and shuffle point that will finger anyone using such in a very short time.

The fact is that as conditions tighten, the clones draw heat away from the mix of tactics that I use. But it would get very boring not having anyone to compare notes with, online or face to face.

They are comprised of capacitors and inductors. Capacitors have a higher reactance against lower frequencies, and inductors have a higher reactance against higher frequencies. Capacitance is measured in farads, and inductance is measured in henrys. The units of measure were selected in respect to each other so that reciprocals could be used to determine the bandwidth that was allowed to pass when the components are configured into a filter.

It has nothing to do with economists killed in Stalin in 1931 over political ideals, or the relationship of your arguments with your opposition.

Sorry, Clarke, this time, I actually understand your post. (Help!) I even understand how you are trying to relate the three pole configuration of a filter to the positioning of participants of the argument. (I mean it, Help!)

Your analogy is extremely weak.

I'm not an ee or ham person and I'm also not familiar with the intellectual pursuits of Kondratiev, but I am famliar with some of Chebyshev's work, namely Chebyshev's Theorem (which generally gives weak results so I hope that's not what you're talking about). If you would care to share any specific equations you think are relevant to this discussion, that would be fine, but, without even knowing what you are specifically refering to, I think you have missed the boat completely on this one.

The Central Limit Theorem, not Don Schlesinger's ego (or anyone else's), forms the basis for risk of ruin calculations on blackjack as they have been presented for decades. Once again, you have blurred the line between idea and person or, in this case, math and mathematician. It is simply a fact of blackjack that one's EV is modelled by the Normal distribution as n -> large and, as such, the CLT applies to risk of ruin evaluations. Ultimately, all advantage players are clones, regardless of how they play. They win, and that does not go unnoticed forever.

I think your energy would be better spent trying to identify how polarizing electron spin states in a semi-conductor through use of a remotely located quantum-entangling device would allow one to legally optimize banger play against a CSM.

How bankroll, expected value, and time, constrain outcomes and distribution. Really you of all should know that the method was developed originaly from modeling noise with the random distribution. The analogy is further that ruin equations have as many valid models as do filter solutions. The use of the same was used by Kondratiev, in the economic theory called Kondratiev Wave Theory of which Eliot Wave Theory and Dow Theory as lesser spin-offs which acknowledge this source. The comparison further is then to DS acting the way Stalin did, that any flexible theory is bogus compared to the one true set of solutons.

You did get it right that the bandpass and other factors are grouped as recipricals. That solution is exactly what I used in my Blackjack Therapy posting for my estimate formula for combining ruin flavors, as an alternative to DS' double barrier formula and which is more general. There the combination of ruin criteria R1, R2....Rn is estimated as (R1+R2...+Rn)*(1-R1)*(1-R2)....(1-RN) In that the reciprical of each ruin state is a "safe exit" reducing the chances of ruin in a process. The solution is adapted in the same way, but still original, that Kondraiev used to take what you call Chebayev's weak conclusions.

I give you good marks for recognizing as much as you did considering the harse words you used in response. Check it again please.

Chebayev's Theorom is the basis for showing how a noise source can be filtered into a bandpass. It is actually very analogous for predicting how a ruin equation will have differing ranges of accuracy and error. Just start with how any ruin equation initialy predicts ruin is impossible because not not enough trials are involved. I have to give ML credit for this when he tried to use this to trip me up.

Network design involves much of the same math as such error range predictions; the error spectrums of a two or other multiple term limited ruin formula have the type of peridic behavor that is predicted by Chebayev. But such do have error bands. That is my point to refute the way ML and Cyrus have used my past disputes as a card to stiffle any new challenges.

Try again. No this is not nonsense, but pointing out how the work Chebayev did crosses and recrosses applications.

Chebayev's Theorom is the basis for showing how a noise source can be filtered into a bandpass.

Then I've heard enough. What you are attempting to do is use a less-accurate model than the Normal distribution/CLT to derive information about risk of ruin. All this will accomplish is producing a betting scheme with a lower EV than a hypothetically optimal scheme produced by traditional RoR approaches.

Waste of time.

Of course, I doubt anyone here takes you seriously anymore, so pointing out the shortcomings in your ideas is probably a waste of time for me.

Pro 21 I probably deserve a good laughing at for them. The point is Chebayev did work basing the noise sprectrum on the standard normal distribution, where limits to any such distribution, such as having a bankroll, an edge, or wanting to avoid ruin function the same way that network elements do. That is how Chebayev's work crossed over to its EE applications.

Please consider my final point how you can take any book's advice, and if adheared to too closely, you can tailor game conditions to catch precisely mainly those who have tried to apply a specific book.

I am just pointing out how various models can serve various purposes. The combination in ruin flavors formula is valid. It is used in part even in the supposedly secret, and only disclosed to Norm Wattenberger and John Austin: double barrier formula.

The point is that filtering can be used to predict the error spectrums of a ruin equation just fine, and with no conflict with any standard normal ruin element. ML once tried to trip me up with trying to goad me into simulating ruin in less trials than bankroll units---a common trick of the clones to put up a phoney straw man. Now add how expected value grows within a trial, which in "cumulative normal distribution function" form--ie he used a spreadsheet instead of an exponential equation of some sort, is all Chris Cummings did when he came up with his modified endpoint ruin formula. All he did was add to the bankroll the accumulated expected value.

Then DS supposedly took the first derivative as a curve stepping estimate for the total probability of hitting a zero barrier during a trial. Well you can derive an exponential version but not this CNDF version.

What recrossing in Chebayev Theory does is show how the obvious initial error of a short trial, has application of predicting similar error bands for other numbers of trials. They are not as drastic of course, but the point is made that all ruin formulas have them.

equivalents! The most obvious error point in any ruin estimate equation is where the number of trials to check is below the number of units in a bankroll. The same logic can be used to show the limits and likely erronious ranges of hands that happen with any ruin formula.

That you post such nonesense! Not a one of those theories or formulas mean squat to me, nor do they influence not one of my gaming decisions. That you seem to thrive in some "mathmetical bubble" gives you pleasure is your business...please keep the excitement to yourself.

BTW, I think Titaniumman fully understands your post...it is you that has a hard time accepting a negative response, harsh or not.

BJ is a game, not some sadistic adventure into quantum theory and a bunch of hokus pokus bullshit. I play for fun and win or lose I have a good time...that you want to carve the game into 5 place decimals is of absolutely no value to me! Perhaps you should create your own web page so that those players of your ilk could more fully appreciate the voodisms you seem to thrive on.

Got it? Or was I too harsh?

Using daughters e-mail. She was just accepted into the electrical eng.. program at UCSD. I find this thread fascinating 3 cheers for....

Hey clark I didn't know you were a fellow EE. Yes and I do vaguely remember those early morning classes with all those "circuitous" equations. Let me share an Idea with you and see what you think of it. Since I went to school there have been big advances in the optical filter field ..do you think it would be cheating to wear a pair of sunglasses that were an optical filter specified to a stopband frequency that matched the color of the back of the card decks. Decks that were not the same lot or had body oils or anything on them would maybe be discernable. I was thinking that you could wear them first and if they didn't take you into the back room and beat the stuffing out of you then maybe I'd give it a try. You could be my debugger and record the Dole (pain units)levels for me as I have a very low pain threshold. I had thought about working for the intelligence community after I graduated but they were less than impressed when I candidly admitted that I would probably tell the Ruskies everything I knew if they threatened to turn off the air comditioner.

Where did ya graduate from ?

I did all my post doctorate work at the Infamous Lacochee school of Animal Husbandry and marriage couseling.

You proably coundn't get in there and had to do your work at MIT I bet.

Clark I have to agree with Titanium on this one. The poles of the cicuit as like the pillars that hold up the casino and the Zeros of the circuit are like the pit crew that wants to back you off. The capacitive reactance is like how many chips you hide in your pocket and the inductive reactance is like being able to figure out the dealers hole card. The order of the transfer function of the circuit relates to the seat that you sit in. The Z transform is like how rested you are. The feedback is like the penetration, The differential input is like how much your bankroll is up or down and the dealer is like the delta/wye connector. The circuit gain/attenation is the running count and its conversion into Db's is like the true count. Titanium understands this stuff and I think that your just jealous of his Engineering prowess, You must not have been to school recently or you would know all these new advances hes talking about like Capacitors and Inductors

Is she good looking?

Which University is the UCSD? I'm living in Europe.
You mine if I send an email to congratulate her?

Here goes:

Hey,

Congratulations for passing your exams and being admitted to your favorite course ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING!!!! Good luck in your course and joy in future experiences in the campus! Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!

Con muchas amores,

Soy feo

I have seen many posts of Clarke's in which he refers to sciences, philosophies, and other disciplines. He also drops a lot of names which appear to be well known to persons studying these disciplines. I, like many others, doubted that all these obscure references could be so easily thrown together, but I didn't know what he was talking about.

Well yesterday, Clarke made some mistakes in carrying off his latest charade.

First, he invited electrical engineers and ham radio operators who count cards right in the heading of his post. I'm an electrical engineer. I have designed analog circuitry in computer monitors, medical equipment, industrial instrumentation, test equipment, and electro-pneumatic devices.

Second, he chose the methodology of designing bandwith filters as part of his hocus-pocus. Now folks, electronic filters are pretty simple circuits. They can be as basic as two sets of conductors in close physical proximity to each other (a capacitor) connected from the signal line to ground and a coil of wire (inductor) connected in series with the signal line. Sounds complicated, but it ain't. There are a heck of a lot more people who can design an electronic filter than there are folks who know basic strategy.

Third, he did not lay his crap on thick enough on this initial post. (Boy, I know that's gotta hurt.) He tried to assert that the theories of some obscure economist who died the better part of a century ago were directly related to how a bandwidth filter is designed. Moreover, he also tried to imply that the posturing of his opponents (He calls them clones because they agree with his arch enemy, Don S.) in an argument fit into this same equation. Well, I don't know about this economist, but I do know all about the design of filters and the politics of his past arguments. They are in no way related.

It's like trying to say that how long a dog will scratch his ear can be determined by studying the composition of the rings of Saturn, and blaming it all on your ex-wife to boot.

If you doubt that the design of a bandwidth filter cannot be related to the other topics, take a print of Clarke's top post in this thread to any college or even trade school. I'm sure you will find someone who understands filters. Show the post to them, and ask if the design of a filter could be related to economics or an argument.

Well Clarke invited me to the fracas. When I told him the truth, he made the above post. He tried to talk down to me like a scolding teacher. He gave me partial credit for partly understanding what he was saying, admonished me for being "harse", and sent me home with my homework assignment. Of course, he also thickened up the nonsense to protect himself. According to him, somehow all this made Don S. act like Stalin!

He also said that I called this Chebayev guy's conclusions weak.

No Clarke, I said that your analogy is weak. I used to not understand you, and thought that even if your posts were nonsense, that it was harmless. But look how much damage you have done in the last few months. I know for sure about you now, and you know that I know.

Dear Titanium.

As a Mathematician and an Electrical Engineer let me argue on behalf of Clark Cant. Let me begin by saying that Mathematics is not segmented...The Differential equation for the the charging of a time constant circuit can be the identical equation that pertains to the synchronus motion of a wheel or clock. Filters, their design and operations is a a very highly developed field and while you feel that Clark was trying to blow smoke up your ass for the purpose of making himself look intelligent, In actuality he was just touching on some of the the very basics of filter design. It seems to me that he prefaced his post that this was meant to be a communication to other Engineers/card counters. What occured was that you seem to have placed yourself into this category, It is not uncommon for technicians and technologists to consider themselves to be Engineers. For the record if you didn't suffer through endless years of sleep deprivation from studying all night. If you didn't spend 4 years and graduate from a fully accredited state college. If you didn't take the state boards for The F.E.(Fundameantals of Engineering)exam. Then your not an Engineer.

Your post yesterday:
Clark I have to agree with Titanium on this one... ...Titanium understands this stuff and I think that your just jealous of his Engineering prowess,

Sure, there are a lot of related formulas that function in the same exact pattern. Engineers, scientists, and philosophers tend to spell better, use proper punctuation, and grammar than you and Cant do, for example.

Too bad bandwidth filters don't run on the same principles as Clarke's wierd theories. Then, I could design a filter to hook up to his posts that would eliminate all the lunacy, provided I could find a capacitor with a high enough working voltage safety rating, and a high enough wattage induction coil to endure the strain. Of course, the yield would be quite small.

Dear Titanium,

Its called Irony..satire for short...you read that and thought I agreed with you. LOL