You can break things down into categories and make a convincing argument that you've gained new information. But if you quantify that information and add it all up, you'll find you have nothing. If you don't know how to quantify it, you shouldn't bet your money on it, nor should you advise others play this way.
You may be playing according to this theory. You may be on a winning streak. But I guarantee you this is not cause and effect.
ETF
and I appear to be the only other one. Learn that the discussion is dominated by a narrow clique, and you get nowhere here, and on bjmath.com, rge21.com, and elsewhere, until Don is summoned or you raise hell in discussions (myself). This is especially true with hard to simulate areas of inquiry. Quickly the brush comes out that paints new inquiries with the label: Patterson/Walter/Frank. They may be bogus but not all unconventional is bogus.
I believe you are right that information can be exploited in regard to PARTIAL knowledge of cards removed, as this is. I don't know how far you have gone investigating this either.
It is enough to make one not want to do business with Morgan Stanelly considering how narrow minded their quants thus seemingly be; this is not a very good reflection on Don's "alma-matter."
But carry-on please!
Don is a great teacher, mathprof is a real mathprof, but consider him a teaching mathpro. I would really like to see what Kim Lee might say about such partial removal methods, as he is a real math-pro, and he seldom comments except if Don has pointed him toward a problem! But alas they all conventionalize and trivialize and attack first in the excuse that this is what they think discussion is. And they NEVER appologize when it turns out that someone they attacked is right and made a legitimate discovery. Instead it is, "oh well, welcome to the group. You know we had to be rough...." Well this is suposed to be DISCUSSION not some damn frat hazing or lodge initiation.
knowledge with credentials. See my new thread post above to tie-in what I think you are doing with a dispute that goes back to Thorp!
If you know the position of the other cards originaly associated with a segment (I hope you click over to bjrnet.com to read the free version of Blackjack Therapy) and know that the segment you just counted has an extra low card, then you know that the segment formerly associated with that just counted segment has to have an extra high card (total X-1). By the time that the shoe depletes enough for that other segment to be dealt you may have enough to solve for X!
Once again look at my new thread post above. There is a continuity of your investigation from counting for end-play, to Thorp, to shuffle-tracking, to your method of adding to previous (or lack of previous) tracking information, during the play of the current shoe, and gaining more than the knowledge of count of the remaining cards. And yes all you Don clones, the fact that trip ruin works DOES remove some CENSORSHIP that once faulty knowledge of the Central Limit Theorem otherwise imposed!
I agree with Clark's sentiment:
But carry-on please!
I have always enjoyed the ingenuity you display in your posts both here and at the CCC. If someone else has thought of this method of tracking, he is probably pretty mad at you right about now. He was probably planning on keeping this method to himself or selling it for an outrageous price. You, however, posted this sensitive information on a FREE forum. But, what else should we expect from a Communist
:^).
Nice Work,
MF
You are saying that a shuffle can somehow decrease randomness, and that simply isn't so.
Choose any segment size n and any multiple m. Take a randomized shoe and study any segment of size n x m. Make a list of everything you know about it. Then take any m segments of size n from ANYWHERE in that shoe or anywhere in ANY randomized shoe with the same number of decks. Slap the m segments together however you like. Shuffle them together or stack them neatly or just mush them together in any fashion whatsoever. The same list of things you wrote up previously for the n x m segment will apply to this n x m segment AND VICE VERSA.
I'm telling you you are mistaken. This is my last post on the subject. The fact that Clarke Cant agrees with you should tell you something.
ETF
If at least one deck in the previous shoe had a positive count, at least one deck in the previous shoe has to have had a negative count. And all decks must be equally represented in each segment. If the deck counts of the previous shoe are A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, then segment 1 of the new shoe has an average 'shape' given by its running count over the segment, and this average running-count shape (prior to the commencement of the segment) will be: 4/52A, 4/52B, 4/52C, ..., 4/52H. We also know that the expected count for segment 1 is 0 = 4/52(A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H), so that any movement away from a running count of zero during the first segment will, on average, be reversed.
Any movement away from zero will be reversed in the rest of the entire shoe. You can't predict that it will return to zero in your arbitrary segment. In other words, just because a whole shoe is guaranteed to have a total running count of zero, that doesn't mean that any arbitrary segment, whether it's 52 cards or 2 cards, is also guaranteed to have a running count of zero. Any segment will have an AVERAGE, or EXPECTED, running count of zero, but the only "border" at which the count must return to zero is at the end of the shoe. You seem to think that the running count will return to zero at every 52-card boundary, simply because you chose 52 cards as your segment size. If I chose 2 cards as my segment size, does that mean all 208 2-card segments have a running count of 0? Of course not. After the first card of a 2-card segment, do I have any more information about the second card than I did if I treated the deck as 1 416-card segment? Of course not.
Suppose you deal the first ten cards from a shoe and they're all face cards. The count is -10. What's more likely: that the count will rise back to 0 in the next 42 cards, or in the next 406 cards? Or consider the segment going from cards 11 to 62. Before you dealt cards 1 through 10, what did you think the average running count was in that segment? Zero, right? So if that's the case, then when you deal 10 cards and they're all -1, you'd still expect the count to be at -10 52 cards later. Basically, you're forgetting that there are a lot more than eight 52-card segments in a shoe. 1-52 is a segment, but so is 2-53, and 3-54, 100-151, etc. And those are just the contiguous segments. Every possible combination of 52 random cards from the shoe will have an EXPECTED running count of 0. But obviously, they can't ALL have a running count of 0.
But by the time that segment is ready to come-into play, you may have a very high degree of information about the total of that segment, from knowing what cards formerly associated with that segment have been drawn. I guess you are just in one of your conventionalizing ruts!
Your argument, as in my post above on Progress...., is not too removed from Garcia discovering counting for endplay and then saying, "well that means certain cards are more probable before the end...," through the similar challenges to shuffle tracking....
although I didn't read through most of the long posts to try to pick apart what he was saying with these equations. The fact that a running count must return to zero is quite meaningless since it returns to zero, on average, at the same rate as the depleation of the shoe, thus preserving the same true count, on average, from any given point until the end. I've seen nothing so far that indicates that he has any extra handle on where the large cards are more likely to show up. The only way to do this is by identifying a rich segment in one shoe and either tracking it through the shuffle in the next shoe, or by having sufficient familiarity with the shuffle that you can predict in what segment it will appear in the next shoe.
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.
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 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. For example: Cacarulo was bitterly attacked over his original posts that resulted in the Catch-22 concept. This was not heated discussion so much as a bizzare initiation more like a bunch of punk frat-rats, than blackjack experts. Cacarulo never got one @#$#%$ appology over the very obvious venom he recieved. He did not cry over this, and since, Don has been always careful to state Cac's figures are almost always correct.
But the FACT remains that Cacarulo was not engaged in discussion, HE WAS HAZED BY A BUNCH OF PUNK-*SSed clones.
And then the cycle repetes itself. It goes on and on and on.....It is like Henry Hazlet's classic, Economics in One Lesson, discussion of the broken window. The clones all go about talking about how lively their debates are (as if "livelyness" should be clocked by the number of errasers thrown) and how great this discussion process is (as rated by how many extra digits can be attached to what is the basic strategy advantage in splitting 7s versus 8 in a double deck game---which is an actual topic and result, scattered between bj21.com green, bjmath.com bjmath and extra, rge21.com Don's domain, over about one month) AND YOU NEVER NOTICE THAT THE TOWN IS ACTUALLY SHORT ONE WINDOW, ie, YOU NEVER NOTICE WHAT NEW APPROACHS HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED by such childish Don and clones Blackjack Attack Hazing!
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.
It's when you DO start following Clarke's conclusions that you're in a lot of trouble! :-)
"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."
He can't, David. He is totally and utterly incapable of going a couple of days without obsessing back to me and past nonsense. It borders on mania, and, in that respect, I feel sorry for him.
But, as far as stopping, forget about it. Clarke can't make posts without eventually coming back to me. I'm hot-wired into his brain. Very, very sad.
Don
Don, you have quite an ego, don't you?
If the segments that used to be associated with a deck behind the cutcard show a higher count when seen, than the the segments that used to be associated with a prior deck, you can be certain the probability of higher cards ACTUALLY being in the deck cutoff is higher; the high cards are more likely to be in the cutoff deck than the prior deck.
This can also be viewed as an extension of my cutcontrol lite idea in Blackjack Therapy. If you see cards that are low cards flashed high, during the shuffle.....I won't repete BJT. In alienated's theory we have a way to have indications that can be used to determine how we might consider how removal might considered to not only be removed from the total pack to be dealt, but from SPECIFIC REGIONS of the total pack to be dealt.
Is is realtime shuffle tracking.
I find nothing more than as I have described for the clones initial treatment of Cacarulo. That was not discussion but childish frat-boy/incrowd/BS HAZING. Such a damn frat I refuse to join!!!!
Clarke, I'm not sure if you get what the point of debate in this entire thread is (was) about. The debate concerns whether having knowledge of the shuffle does us any good if we have not seen the prior shoe.
If the segments that used to be associated with a deck behind the cutcard show a higher count when seen, than the the segments that used to be associated with a prior deck, you can be certain the probability of higher cards ACTUALLY being in the deck cutoff is higher;
This information, obtained after the fact, does us little good when making bets during the current shoe. If your claim is that this information could be useful in the following shoe then I neither agree nor disagree. It is not impossible. But having absolutely perfect tracking information does us zero good if we have not seen the front of the cards. Unless the cards are marked, following the backs of the cards through a shuffle is pointless. It is like perfectly following the three objects in a shell game when you didn't know under which of the three the winner was in the first place. You have the same 33.3% chance that you would have had if you had not perfectly followed the shuffle. If you agree with this then any other point is a new topic and this one is closed. If you are talking about shuffle tracking methods employed when you have information about the prior shoe, great. I'm not a shuffle tracker and will leave that discussion for others.
During the dealer's riffle you see cards flashed for split seconds. If you see a high card flashed high and the cut is low, you bet high. All other combinations can be worked out similarly, for single and good rule double decks, if you change two entries each time.
What you are doing is noting that if a high card is seen and going to come up in the first round, it is more likely a low card was part of the cards left lower in the deck. This allows you to profitably varry your bets off the top.
For the shoe game you might (and I don't want to get bogged down like alienated was and driven off.....into TARGETland) also note that the the deck behind the cutcard (assuming one cut off) is composed of grab sized sections, that used to be part of other subdecks. If original subdeck A is split into a1 and a2, and original subdeck B is split into b1 and b2, and the cutoff subdeck is a1+b2, and you have counted the subdecks that were composed of a2 and b1, you have similar information as you have with cut control lite. If the other subdecks that were originally associated with the cutoff subdeck all had high plus count totals YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD INDICATION that for the total remaining count that the high cards it might indicate, ARE ACTUALLY BEHIND THE CUT CARD.
(Ted) alienated just applied the standard "tracking the cutoffs," strategy, to a bit hazzy idea he had about shoe volitility. I followed through as best as I (or anyone) could, and I realized (unlike everyone else who was focused on disproving him ---ie being a bunch of damn hazers) that when he was talking about counts coming back to zero and the like HE WAS ALSO talking about something like cut control lite!
So I saw something hazing clones missed!
