Clarke Cant,thought you could give me a new twist but.......

You seem to be full of buzzwords but it doesn't answer any question.
Maybe it is too deep for me to understand.

You seem to have only 1 perspective, that is quantum algorithms. Not sure if you really know what you're talking about. Do you study anything else beside quantum?

You're mad! No denying this.

Creativity? Score very low, I'm afraid.

You make simple things extremely impossibly complicated. Any uncreative fool will do that.

And you can't speak Cantonese.(smile)

My psychoanalysis is complete.

Good bye, I have many papers to write for my university next year + parties.

Choi keen,
NA

When you go far out you always are going to deal with the limits of reality, and when you hit the limits you have to deal with the dreams stuff is made of: QM!

I think I pointed out properly how, in your posts on ROR--DI index, that what you were really dealing with was not any CE type issue but the issue of the size of the fish versus the size of the pond. Isolated issues relating to ANY random situation in edge are already well known. You got angry.

There are many factors involved in THAT issue that if fact merit new work. They include: the question of what fraction of a market in trade is most profitable for a market maker? What edge in sports betting, since the real edge is versus the other bettors, will allow one to bet the highest percentage of the money bet on a given event? What edge, different from the above, will actually bring the highest profit? How large can a mutual fund grow, as a percentage of the total funds invested in the same stocks, as a function of its edge over the average investors, until its return maximizes?

In blackjack what is the lowest CE, as you are on a winning streak, that will ID you as a pressing ploppy? What is the highest CE, that will not ID you as at least a money manager, from cutting your bets in a losing situation, and burst his hopes that "now the tide has turned and we can beat him." In the first betting a low fraction is a strong indicator of non-involvement in the game outcomes. In the second, betting a high fraction, has you cutting back your bets drastically. Your casino host at minimum your time playing is not going to cut as high for comps, and could lead to a barring on the idea, "to hell with him; we ain't getting it back anyway."

You could call it "Ramblings for the clueless."

What does quantum mechanics have to do with blackjack? One can play perfectly good blackjack and manage a bankroll with the following four classical mechanics type things:

1) Knowledge of arithmetic at the level of medieval Europe.
2) Enough knowledge of Newtonian mechanics to enable me to get to [and leave] the casino in my car while avoiding crashing into other cars, trees, light poles, etc. :-D :-D :-D Newtonian mechanics also doubles for looking at shuffles or whatever. I'd sure hate to see a shuffle obey the laws of quantum mechanics - then I couldn't track it, because I wouldn't know if the cards were really going where I was observing them to be going! :-) :-)
3) Understanding of the law of compound interest, to grow the bankroll.
4) An early 19th-century understanding of statistics to analyze what's happening relative to expectation.
5) A decent book or two about card counting. Wong, Revere, Schlesinger, whatever.

I can't think of any event in science since 1900 that I need to know about in order to count cards at blackjack, except of course for the legacy of Dr. Thorp and other card counting authors.

That isn't to say that they're not _interesting_ and _needed_ in other parts of ones life e.g. writing on this computer.

This being said, I will confess that I have _never_ 'tunnelled.' I think I'm rather large for that. I would have loved to 'tunnel' when that security guy was trespassing me. :-) Also would have been nice to 'tunnel' from my little dinky hotel room to the penthouse suite.

So, thus is my humorous defense of reliance on Newtonian laws for blackjack. Cheers!

I say that based only on reading of dozens of his posts over the last several days... But who knows, this may also be a passing low(?) period(?) for the poster just leaving footmarks in the sand...

...a stronger challenge to the ploppies than saying they don't exist.

Suppose Walter, DD, and SOTSOG are given a time machine somehow (see above Santa post). Walter achieves results 5 sigma in his favor, but only by setting his mind in a state, where he can only enter that altered state by playing his flawed basic strategy and his progressions. SOTSOG, stands on the shoulders of giants, and stays with a solid count game, that does not need Walter's psi effects to win, but admits that it is possible to take things further. He keeps his results somehow 2 sigma in his favor, by building a wierd contraption that is part radionics device and Palm Pilot 701. DD has nothing to do with this and just plays, and also keeps to a solid count game.

They travel back to 1962, where DD discovers a soft drink made in the People's Republic China, and sold in Hong Kong, that SOTSOG is adicted to somehow, "Red Dragon Cola," has a combination of Ginsing and Guranine that lengthens teleomeres. DD turns out to be secretly a biochemist. They discover an immortality elixer.

So by careful scheduling, other than an embarassing trip to the Sands to see the Rat Pack on a Thursday, where they are the entire audience in various disguises, they rack up 300 years of playing, in that single deck, all cards dealt era.

Despite all of the strange edge possibilities playing out--Walter is going to lose, DD is going to win, SOTSOG is going to win the most, but DD is going to show almost the same lifetime edge that SOTSOG is.

Conclusion:

Yes there can be Magick along with Magic.

Yes the physics of the universe say things CAN get pretty weird and conventionalism is often wrong.

But the math wins to the degree it can be applied without heat.

i'm a photon at Desert Springs Hospital here in LV. i just went flying around the room while some of my buddies killed some old hag's cancer they got from smokin' cigarettes at the slots.

Why should any right-living photon hang out in a depressing hospital cobalt therapy room when i [would could be was] at the Rat Pack Show, and after the show go play at the single deck tables and play with those itty bitty cards in my version of time and space?!

Realistically, if i slam into an electron in the wall hard enough, could i send a karma-like second photon on its way to the Strip to fulfill this fantasy, and maybe get that electron moving [not so far], too?

:-) :-) :-) :-)

sure i could!

too bad i got to start here at the hospital though. soooo depressing.....

signed, one little photon, more interested in 21 the way it _is_ with Ken Uston :-)

p.s. the pit bosses will never bar me, because i'm too small!

and see my above post for slog workers. Have I got a dirty job for you!

They never tried other advantage plays, they broke legs then. They never tried to sell immortality. They never tried anything that would lead to another universe or conventionally time paradoxes.

1962 was chosen too in that it was a busy year with casino winnings mysteriously low. There is some evidence that the mob even gave up on their skims that year, much as the Lowdens lucked out, in their early days at the Hacienda, when the mob didn't have the crews to keep their money coming in. Otherwise Lowden likely would have been just another Allen Glick. I hope you enjoyed this and the point was clear about how the math still wins even with succesful voodoo!