For some strange reason the September issues out now of just about every hobby electronics magazine, such as , 73, QST, Popelectronics, etc., are chock full of articles on home-built test equipment and calibration of same. In every one of these magazines there is some discussion of bow-effects, the same as I have posted on.
The easiest to find example---simply because it has the largest circulation of such mags.--- is on page 45, of the September 2002 issue of Poptronics Magazine. A combined range, direct heat index meter is described that discusses, in the article, on page 47 (first paragraph in the main text), how to match sensor range to accuracy range, for various salt detectors, for the heat index, that is exactly the same as to how come the true count is less accurate in more extreme ranges, and gets more distortion in deeper games.
Similar is found in articles on how to build, and calibrate, an RF meter in the other ham radio magazines above, in slightly different projects.
It is not really anything different than has been discussed by myself here in regard to blackjack, but somehow, with blackjack, IMHO most readers are compartmentalizing their thinking and not applying what they know from more conventional mathematics and statistics and electronics and physics. There apparently is something psychological about applying this to casino gambling that colors one's self analysis and use of the other mind tools we use, that causes one to irrationaly deffer to so-called experts.
I will just hint at one such example that will shock anyone who cares to check it out on bjmath.com, and its link to Wolfram's World of Math. What I called Theorem III in my posts refuting ML's, which he has called heresy, is actually a well accepted Theorem in statistics, applied to blackjack by myself in the version I gave, and which the usual bunch itself also used in refuting the alleged effects of Kerotosis , in several bjmath.com posts there (unless missing too in the remodeling?). Theorem III as I called it is just a well known theorem used to dispell the notion that the order in which sections of a population are segmented for sampling, has no effect on such sampling. I used a coralary of that, which I called Theorem III, that the number of such sections remaining in a population does not change the means of any section or sections. When one claims that basic strategy edges grow, when less cards are left, one is making a claim that having less such sections left in a population being studied, raises some parameter in such sections. Have fun as you confirm the above on your own (LOL ;-)!
Yet taken out of its absolutely accepted context, of general statistics, it is challenged and condemned as heresy, simply because the accepted experts have forgotten it in the years that they carefully built their reputation in the narrow field comparably of blackjack.
Well I won't spoil the fun for those willing to do their own thinking and checking on this, but reread my FA posts and rethink as you do your own exploring! Mostly see this post as a call to apply one's mind without bounding up your expertise into little cubicles, before the Dilberts, Masquarading as Masters, take advantage further of your being accepting of having cubicled your minds. ;-)
And before Frank jumps in with his comments, this is not any flaw of the sort you describe, but a recent failure to think! The rest of my thought, which would be aimed at Frank, is easy to guess!