Expectation, Expected Value, and Cant disinformation

Just a little surfing the web makes plain the Cant criticism of my proof is the spreading of absolute disinformation.

The proof used the concept of expectation of each true count. Wolfram's mathworld defines expected value by referring to the definition of expectation value. All through the proof I referred to the values of expectation. See http://www.mathworld.wolfram.com/ExpectedValue.html .

Then for the definition of Expected Value: http://www.math.uah.edu/statexpect/expect1.html

Expected value is the mean of all samples found in the population as sample size approaches infinity and is one value, just as I defined it in the proof, the mean of all possibilities of m cards created from a stack of n cards with a specific true count. From this it is clear Cant does not even understand what the expectation of a true count is or what the definition of expected value, one of the most important statistical concepts used throughout blackjack literature, actually is.

The point remains he has spent thousands of words criticising something because he did not even understand the language used. All those thousands of words were wasted and I had to waste many too. That is the definition of a troll. Doing anything to get a response including spreading disinformation.

Cant's math Cant be trusted and he has proven that one more time.

"The point remains he has spent thousands of words criticising something because he did not even understand ..."

The same could be said of

Stanton
Patrick
Puiu/BMW850/Sonia/ad nauseum
...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The mean in question is further restricted by the previous pack compositions and is different from the mean for all possible packs given only the true count and cards left.

Starting with an arbitrary stack of cards with a certain expectation, E(i,n), there is an expected value for the expectation of each true count that may be derived from that stack. That expected value is the mean of all order and permutation possibilities for stacks having n cards and a specific true count because the definition of expected value or expectation value is the mean as the samples approach infinity as described in the articles I cited. The usage of the expected value E(i,m) and the definitions were clear and no ambiguity could attach to the definitions as I published them in the proof to anyone with passing knowledge of mathematical definition and mathematical terminology.

Point out one place where I defined the terms as anything but expected value or one place that I defined any of my terms as "the mean for all possible packs given only the true count and the number of cards remaining" as you claim. Your ignorance may have made you presume that was my definition but it was not. My definition pointed out it was the expected value of all subsets of specific true counts of subsets which could be derived from the starting set.

To clarify that was exactly what I meant, I used the image of stacking all the cards which consisted of all subsets of like true count which could be derived from the starting stack to make the thing as clear as possible.

Like the troll you are you wasted thousands of words and I wasted at least hundreds of words because of your ignorance of mathematical definition and claiming I said something I did not say, that the expected values I used were not what they were.

You just waste peoples' time and your own time posting such nonsense.

That expected value is the mean of all order and permutation possibilities for stacks having n cards and a specific true count

This is your definition above. Below is what I said about your definiton.

"the mean for all possible packs given only the true count and the number of cards remaining"

These statements are exactly equivalent ones, except for cornered clones.

Below now is your alleged clarification

I used the image of stacking all the cards which consisted of all subsets of like true count which could be derived from the starting stack to make the thing as clear as possible.

Your alleged proof follows the initial definition while the second from you is almost correct. Only you when cornered would ever be able to get away with claiming there is no contradiction between these statements by you, or that I did not correctly summerize your initial definition.

What is correct is that every previous pack composition is the start of further distributions for which I used the True Count Theorem. My proof is correct, yours is a mass of contradictions where you intend to simply bash me. Growup!