Hello Orange Cnty KO and distinguished readers. Sorry I'm a little late posting some comments about this, but I also have a job to attend, still unretired. Besides I was thinking about two things:
1) I don�t like the relation between KC and #Decks being not linear. It just bother me, just doesn't fit, given that all the other objects involved are linear.
2) The 2.75 appearing in your formulas.
Now I�ve come to a customized table -for me, at least- for determine KC, the magic number on which presence I�m gonna start raisin my bets... So help me Bernoully if I�m wrong!
Obviously the 2.75 you mention in your kind post comes from three assumptions:
I) There is a linear function between KC and #Decks
II) With 0 decks all parameters equal zero (Which in my last post I overviewed)
III) 22 is a correct value to KC for 8 decks.
With this in mind, the linear equation that links KC and #Decks is
You�ll see that speakin of money this is a nontrivial change.
WELL BELOW (LOL!) is a table wich contains: #Decks, KC values given by you, KC calculated, KC rounded. (Table went to the bottom due to some bug in the HTML here or some dwarf. I already reported it to webmaster). Please move the cursor down or press PgDown twice. TY
|#Decks||Given KC||True KC||Rounded|
Of course, I know there are no 3, 5 or 7 deckers games. But there is a major change for the one deck situation, which somehow explains some strange behavior I�ve been noticing in my hours in front of my PC practicin KO. On the other hand, I chosen to round to the next integer -higher than you propose- for safety in the one and 6 decker. What do you people think about it?
Greetings from M�xico City.