To prevent misunderstandings: Some sims
As usual Cant is spreading blackjack misinformation on blackjack boards. Normally his posts which supposedly are to impart information are so unintelligible he can deny that what was said was what was really meant to be said. This time he is in a position where he cannot use this dodge and dodge because he has been unusally clear for him.
He has said the floating edge is a sausage mixture which is misperceived because:
1. The bow effect (which is real) means overall expectancy remains unchanged as decks are depleted but that more expectancy is crowded into the middle of the distribution. That is, the expectancy might look better in the middle of the distribution but similar increases in expectancy as cards are depleted do not happen at extreme counts so overall expectancy stays the same. Expectancy does not change "across the board."
2. The accounting for counts which are greater in actuality because true counts are higher than running counts when less than a deck remains.
Both of these statements are inaccurate and the results of sims I ran today show them to be inaccurate.
The sims are SBA. SBA allows you to stack a deck like you please so I stacked decks in the following ways:
1. I added one 2-6 and took away four tens and an ace, creating decks with a true count of -10.
2. I took out one 2-6 and added four tens and an ace, creating decks with a true count of +10.
I ran sims of fifty rounds from eight decks and one round from single deck, using basic strategy, S17 DAS split 3, 30M rounds.
Results:
-10 eight deck---------(-.0718463)---std error .0002
-10 single deck--------(-.0662448)
Difference-------------(+.0056015)
+10 single deck--------(+.040048)------std error .0002
+10 eight deck---------(+.035596)
Difference-------------(+.004452)
Calculated difference for standard decks
Eight Deck---(-.004)
Single Deck--(+.0012)
Difference---(+.0052)
Anyone can run similar sims to check my data.
Everyone will notice two things consistent with my previous posts.
1. An advantage occurs of the magnitude I predicted for both extreme low counts and extreme high counts and the magnitude of the advantages track the magnitude of the difference in original expectations for eight deck and single deck even at the extreme. I used the word "track" which was meant to convey very similar differences without predicting identical differences. The floating advantage occurs across the board.
2. Only one round was dealt from the single deck so inflated running counts cannot be a factor in the differences seen.
As I have said before, I have a theory not accepted by others as to why the phenomonon occurs but that is not of import here because these sims clearly show it does occur in the magnitudes I predicted across count ranges. If getting things right is being a clone, please address me as Mr. Clone.
I hope this post demonstrates to the board another important point because I will not again spend the time or energy to address Cant's nonsense (and I really, really, mean it this time). Cant's imperfect knowledge of mathematics and his imperfect knowledge of blackjack even if he does know some of the vocabulary tend, at least for persons not familar with the nonsense, to add legitimacy to illegitimate conclusions. When confronted he goes into the no nothing populist mode saying a person who disagrees with him disagrees because he wants to curry favor with Cant's hated Don Schlesinger.
As a matter of historical accuracy, I have disagreed with Don a number of times. One time was on this very subject when I criticised Don's analogy of a balloon where the floating edge occurred from squeezing air from the sides and inflating the middle, insisting instead it was an across the count phenomonon. Also, for historical accuracy, most of the times I disagreed with Don I was demonstrably wrong as most people who disagree with Don are wrong.
The point I am making is that I hope people reading this post will understand the import. It is not that my earlier observations were correct and Cant's were wrong. It is that any Cant post should be viewed with extreme caution.