Warning this post contains quantum mechanics

There are several areas of quantum mechanics where the existance of a virtual interaction precludes or modifies other interactions. But it may suprise you to know that such areas do not necessarily involve things like wavefunctions or the Pauli exclussion principle, but "ordinary" statistics instead.

Very ordinary statistics does absolutely state that:

The exclusion of excedingly rare events in a population sampling, does modify such sampling, even in data population sizes too small for those rare events to be observed.

And if your population has become rather small to exclude such things as getting 24 aces because there are only 23 cards left, well that is an example of the above.

And that is the only valid mechanism whereby basic strategy edge would rise with penetration, and it is so small that there may not be enough computers or time, even today, to simulate it enough to prove it.

Well I did promise to restate the exception to my criticisms of FA claims. Not much huh?

OK...events of very low probability...and _ordinary_ statistics...does anyone know what are the odds that an American male (no, not a female but a _male_) will reach 100 years old? Am way curious, even though it's neither a '21' nor a quantum mechanics question.

By the way, all the cards I ever played with were macroscopic...poker sized, in fact. They obeyed the laws of _ordinary_ statistics. Didn't have to take Q. Mech to understand when the dealer pitched a little too hard and flipped a card to the ground (or chair)...Phy 101A was plenty! :-D

Interesting post Irma. I remember in one of my mathematics courses in college there was a cartoon at the bottom of the page. the cartoon showed a car up on one of those lifts and a guy under it twisting a wrench. he had a bubble pointing to him which read " I started out in quantum mechanics but I must have taken a wrong course somewhere". You can get the info.. you want on the internet its called a life expectancy chart. Surprisingly no matter how old you are you never run out of time...It would be interesting to see how old you have to be to have a life expectancy of 15 minutes.

Stephen

The odds of a male living to 100 depend on the environment, his genetics,
how well he takes care of himself, etc as described in :

http://www.livingto100.com/quiz.htm

According to the above websiste, a male could have a 50/50 chance of living to 100. That's according to their quiz.

either he does or he does not. However for 100 years any breath
could be your last.

the average life expectancy for most developed countries are increasing in a linear function with a marginal coefficient of .5 years increase in expectancy annually.
The trend is strictly linear which means it's not showing signs of deterioration, every 10 years on the average person will live about 5 years longer.

The reasons may be due to increase health awareness, regular exercise, better nutrition, balanced sex life (yes, it affects longevity by stimulating normal hormone production), less stressful life, more stimulation to brain with diverse educational stimulis (This reduces alzeimer's disease which has some correlation with life expectancy).

You can try to research the web for informations on how to keep fit and improve the odds of survival very easily. There's plenty of information everywhere.

which stimulates chemical reactions in the brain, this oils the brain and increases the longevity of the cells. Hence regular exercise and sex can increase life expectancy in this way.
According to some research which I have forgotten its' source, the optimal stimulation for an average male is 2-3 times per week of sex or exercise for maximum benefits.

the average person from the U.S.A experiencing, due to rapid increase in information communication efficiency, the I.Q points of the average U.S. citizen is growing at a rate faster than can be explained by Darwinian evolutionary processes. There has been studies, mainly for researching alzeimers disease, that improve cognitive training and/or rapid exposure to cognitive stimulis will delay death of neurons. This is another hypothesis that is being use to explain the rapid increase in life expectancy.

The reasons may be due to increase health awareness, regular exercise, better nutrition, balanced sex life (yes, it affects longevity by stimulating normal hormone production), less stressful life, more stimulation to brain with diverse educational stimulis (This reduces alzeimer's disease which has some correlation with life expectancy).

I think the sole reason is medical advancement. I don't think the lifestyles of the average person is improving. Our diets suck. 65% of the US population is overweight, cancer and heart disease is rampant, and pollution is increasing.
I can't comment on stress levels, but if I had to make a guess on today's society it is much worse.

If you start out dealing from eight decks you will find:

1. A 52 card stack having a minus ten count will be more favorable than a 104 deck stack having a minus ten count.

2. A 52 card stack having a zero count will be more favorable than a 104 deck stack having a zero count.

3. A 52 card stack having a plus ten count will be more favorable than a 104 card stack having a plus ten count.

4. The differences in favorability will be very similar to the differences in favorabilities of double deck and single deck using the same rules.

5. The differences in favorability will show on simulations.

6. Similar differences exist no matter how many cards are in a stack.

7. The difference is what is termed the "floating advantage".

8. The differences have no relation to quantum mechanics.

In your simulations you didn't start with sections drawn from an 8 deck shoe, but you started with complete single decks, etc.

So your points 1-3 are invalid and 4 is valid only coming from accepting 1-3. 5 begs the question: which simulations?

That different counts in different initial complete packs show differences, for all similar balances, involves using the old equality of means assumption: the mean of all possible decks is the mean of the mean deck (or section), to cover what I have clearly demonstrated: the deep round and shallow round have exactly the same means; the only difference is how the differing true counts evaluate them.

ML to finally put the stake through the heart of your arguments: don't you realize that you are necessarily saying that for a given shoe, you could make the round that is one deck deep, have the mean edge of a single deck, by cutting so that it is now one deck from the end?

I doubt you do in that you are looking at tainted simulation data that includes a rounding flaw to somehow rescue you from this ridiculous "reasoning." One folly deserves an entire string to them I am sure(not)?

The actual FA as per your definitions is a minute, purely theoretical, effect that comes from excluding rare results in a closed system.

I am comparing a stack of 52 cards with a stack of 104 cards and also placing the same condition the floating edge imposes, identical counts for both stacks. The imposed conditions cannot help ruling out an arbitrary fifty two cards at the bottom of a stack because such a sample, by definition, does not meet my criterium. And my criterium is the identical critirium which is used to define the floating advantage, not an arbitrary sample of fifty two cards as you are stating.

that are absolute means. That a round is one deck from the begining or end of a shoe makes no difference in its mean edge. That mean edge will be the mean edge of all rounds from a shoe of that size and rules--exluding rounds that require shuffling to finish (that has more complex but similar limits).

Another item to remind you of: a corelation coefficient removes amplitude effects. I do that to make this point: the differense in the rounds is the true counts before them and the imformation that they carry. The true count before the deeper round has more amplitude and less corelation, than the true count before the shallower round.

Just how clonelike do you have to be to not see how true count inflation and exclusion taint some sims also?

For a rebuslike way of stating my claims: bow effect+true count partition errors = apparent floating advantage. Exlude the parition errors and you have a bow effect. Go over T-Hopper's sim data on the suprising importance of playing efficiency and you have the other part of the puzzle if you go back to Griffin's explanation of the bow effect.

You know I am right; your mind just cannot accept your leader being wrong and now hiding how true count parition errors are the basis of the alleged sim support. Your leader has failed you, and the shock is so monumental you will go to any length of evasion to avoid admitting it!

I was looking for the _actuarial_ probability of this based on an actual large population. The large population contains everybody from Jack LaLanne to the chain smoker that drives ya nuts at the '21' table. The question is not so much about techniques to live to 100 (veggies, fruits, exercise...) but more about what percentage of men in a large population actually _d##### live to that age.

For example, out of a cohort of 100,000 guys born in 1900, how many actually lived to be 100? .

DHEA oils the brain ? LOL