Answer - Not a lot ;-) (nt)
Does anyone else have problems with this? Or am I the only one. I can't see how you can reduce the entropy of an unknown sequence of cards no matter which way you shuffle them.
It is a point missed by many. ETF disputed my post on linear estimates of having uncertain hole card indexes by saying "until....4/13." (well that is close enough for this purpose). What he ignored is that he was really dealing with 2 sets of information: the usual probability of 10s, and the hole card prediction being just above noise level. The prediction accuracy can be approximated the same as having a main count and side count prediction of a hole card being a 10 or the SQR of the sum of 2 times (4/13)^2.(See Theory of Blackjack and Griffin's quick formula for evaluating a side count)
So instead of being a low accuracy, even barely above noise level has a combined high accuracy.
So you are taking information about the zones of a prior shoe, to say nothing of the patterns of how cards might clump together with even a minor banger based bias (see my Blackjack Therapy ms. on bjrnet.com). These quantitative analysis methods are certain to provide profits ANYTIME they are used to provide PREDICTIONS and are not assuming certain results have certain assumed causes. This was the defect in the infamous Boris software. It could tell you precisely what type of shuffle WAS involved, and how each card was deflected in EACH riffle, but could tell virtually nothing PREDICTIVE about how likely it was for these PAST results to show some BIAS where the NEXT shoe could be PREDICTED.
What you are RESTORING to these pages is a sense of how well we can DATAmine information that appears to be JUST NOISE, that is actually much the same way Thorp proved that counting tens, would provide useful information before the end of the deck, when prior counting pioneers, like Garcia, only thought that endplay would be the only exploitable use (so there is still hope for Bacarat counting too).
I hope this helps you sort out your claims and opens the eyes of the usual conventionalizers here about how your ideas can prove workable, if strictly developed.
Here is one significant quote, regarding distributive latency:
"That normal distribution for insertions still causes a delay in the reapearence of the cards. The fact is, that you can select the latency you wish to play to. If you select rounds corresponding to 1 deck, you will adjust your true count always by counting the last one deck�s worth of cards, dividing the running count by 3 and multiplying the count again by �, or simply dividing by 4. If you select 2 decks worth or rounds, you would divide by 2, and then multiply by � or again divide by 4. Strange you say�damn right! But just because the equivalent true count divisor turns out to be invariant does NOT in any way mean that there is not any exploitable latency. Chapter 10 will take a whimsical trip through physics and philosophy to show how invariance is nothing to be feared and not reason to jump to conclusions�except for bad mathematicians"
The problem I have in understanding is that you seem to be saying that the nature of the shuffling process gives you exploitable information about the subsequent shoe.
I can't see how even perfect information on the movement of each card position would be useful if you don't know what those cards are!
This is the BIG stumbling block for everybody. Please deal with it, preferably in very simple language, even though I know you want to keep this stuff secret.
It sounds like some very valuable information is being imparted here but I think most of the math guys are thinking you are violating the principle that probability operates on known information, which is like violating a biggie like the law of independent trials or something.
This is a quote from a post I made on bjmath.com on how a simplified trip ruin shows how Don's Brain Trust missed out on opening up some Chebayev Polynomial Analysis, that the closed box assumption of the Central Limit Theorem otherwise negates:
"Samuelson's formula is that infinite goal ruin is:
e^(-2*alpha), where alpha is the ratio between an optimal bankroll and your actual bankroll. This would make alpha then =B/EKB, where B is your actual bankroll and EKB the optimal number of units. EKB= (sd^2)/ev, where ev is the expected value. Then ruin becomes = e^(-2*B*ev/(sd^2))
If you then somehow wished to approximate (please note this is just an easy version, but similar to...) the probability of ending below a bankroll of zero, but only AFTER playing a given number of hands you would add in the expected value of playing that number of hands. Ruin then becomes= e^(-2*(B+(h*ev))*ev/(sd^2).
Schlesinger just moves the formula to a normal distribution form to be easier with modern spreadsheets.
The correlation between infinite goal results and finite results is sometimes called Euler's limit or E=(1-(1/SQR(h)). If we consider that the infinite goal formula times E is the probability of crossing zero within the box, since this so-called infinite goal formula is actually the open box estimate within the target number of samples, when adjusted, and that the Cummings formula gives the result at or after the target sample, then the total probability of crossing zero within h hands, or being ruined before h hands overall is:
E*[e^(-2*B*ev/(sd^2))+e^(-2*(B+(h*ev))*ev/(sd^2))] which is another form of Schlesinger trip ruin."
Which just includes how what I called Euler's formula, which is an approximation of how far a limited sample is in predicting an infinite goal, can approximate how the cumulative normal distribution is used on modern spread sheets.
Another quote shows how we now CAN admit how knowing exact BOUNDARIES can be used in ways the normal understanding of the CLT said "no-way turkey" to.
"It is for example the closed box assumption of the CLT that has always been used to challenge Chebayev polynomial analysis, where exact results are predicted, from analysis of repetitive patterns in normal fluctuation, when a given level of fluctuations is known. Normal stock trading where a given group of trades is known will trigger certain "trading circuit breakers," is a well-known example of where fluctuations are known."
What you are doing is in a very imprecise and fuzzy way saying that any observations of a prior shoe open the way to set limits on how the cards are distributed in any possible new shoe.
I hope you can see that my criticism of Don's Brain Trust is not a mere polemnic, but is intended to point out how they missed knowing how they have opened other possibilities. This is why what you are claiming is potentialy valid if properly developed.
It is so-sad to note how their "Blackjack Attack" ways left them blind to realizing that they had removed so many barriers, that can be developed into new ways to beat blackjack!
It is possible to bound (not reduce) entropy, and Don's trip ruin actually showed how it is possible. Not being able to truly bound such is one of the early arguments against shuffle tracking itself. (We accept shuffle tracking only because it is linked with the hard bounding concept of the shuffle mechanics. Alienated just expands this to softer sorts of boundaries.) But Don't trip ruin shows how the shape of results, as a pathway to an endpoint, can be bounded.
Now possible does not necessarily mean Alienated did it. But once you end how the CLT has been so prohibitive of some concepts, a lot of exciting things are possible!
Shuffle tracking is considered valid because it modifies the concept of randomness with hard boundaries introduced by the mechanics of the shuffle process. There is nothing, since Don's Trip Ruin has been shown to be valid, that excludes softer boundaries to randomness from being exploited too!!!!!
just how long it was going to take you to dredge up this erroneous bullshit once again. Took over a month, by my reckoning.
Don
The Central Limit Theorem states that you cannot predict the boundaries of a random process before the target number of trials is seen, or results are in. Yet, even though you might claim that ruin is, by being a end of trials result, not such (you could be wrong), YOUR trip ruin gives results before the limits of the closed box are reached. It shows bounding of the path of your outcomes, within the damn box.
You just don't get it: you really DID solve the closed box problem.
You, in preference to continuing your Blackjack Attack conventionalization ways, cannot even see the possibilities you have created. You are like Planc, not realizing that his paper on the distribution of light spectra in a black body analysis had really shown the existance of quanta!
...to chop off my answer, please save it somehow. He just cannot accept he really DID solve the closed box problem. In that he is sadder than Planc, by far!!!!!!!!
Don't feel as though I am trying to attack you, because your thinking is very original and thought provoking. I am trying to convince myself one way or another whether you are correct :)
Now take a random shoe of cards and split it into eight segments. On average, each of these segments has a true count of zero (with no further information). I think that this is the same as your shuffle 2 example, in effect the shuffle you describe is 'perfect', and knowing where one segment starts and ends gives us no extra information at all. So if the running count goes up, then it will come down on average in accordance with the true-count theorem over the entire shoe (not segment).
You know that a given seqment is composed of cards that were a half deck from the end of the previous shoe and 2 decks from the end. You know that that given segment ended with a +3 runing count, start to finish. You know that the remaining cards that were a half deck from the end of the previous shoe, and were remainders of the previous shoe 2 decks from the end, ARE GOING TO BE THE MAIN PART OF THE NEXT SEGMENT. There is a very weak, but still significant, likelyhood that that next segment, WILL be slightly richer than average, in that the cards you just saw are NOT just removed from the total remainders, BUT ARE ALSO to a great degree SPECIFICALLY removed from the next segment. If you have any reason to presume that the prior shoe was "balanced" you are correct in being slightly more certain that the next segement is richer.
My entire discussion about trip ruin is just to introduce the FACT that the CLT is not as prohibitive as it once was thought to be about such predictions. Trip ruin validity means that sample boundarys don't have to be as definite, as is discussed nomraly in shuffle tracking, to make such inferences, in the same way that trip ruin shows statistical boundaries to results can be found even before normal sample limits. Showing how you can open a box also shows how you can exploit the "box" being fuzzy too.
that the trip ruin formula was missing from this thread about CSMs. Thanks for bringing it into the discussion, Clarke.
... when GBV is right.
"I can't see how even perfect information on the movement of each card position would be useful if you don't know what those cards are!"
