What mysticism?...ETFan

ETFan, I began this up the top of the Index, to get away from the scrunched-to-the right-hand side of the page the headings have taken on my computer, (in the variance discussion.) I've responded here to your mysticism question.

Quote from you: "Modern science explicitly incorporates luck as a prime ingredient. Quantum physics is based on probability theory. Probability theory of course, is the study of luck. I don't think this is news to anyone."

Maybe it's news to Wiki, because when I googled probability theory, nowhere in their long ramble did I spot the word, 'luck.' Although several times 'random variable' and 'convergence random variable' are used. Now why do you suppose they would apparently deliberately avoid the word "luck"? You have no problem linking that word with probability theory.

Wiki begins with: "Probability theory is the branch of mathematics concerned with analysis of random phenomena." No 'luck' there either. A dictionary says: "Luck, (also called fortuity) is a chance happening, or that which happens beyond a person's control." and, "Another view holds that 'luck is probability taken personally.'

You wrote: "Variance helps us quantify luck." To which I replied, "Great to see the union of science and mysticism." To which you replied: "What mysticism?"

I think the majority of us are not exactly informed, when it comes to complex math, such as calculus and algebraic formulae. Only the odd one here and there, such as you and Don, and maybe a few others here, are comfortable with complex math formulae and the like. Oh, sure, most us us can grasp basic stuff like 28.20%, the dealer hand average bust figure.

When you linked variance with luck, you merged science and luck. You, representing science, are invited to lead us out of the Dark Ages concerning variance, which is a mystifying thing for many. You have already helped there, somewhat.

Now for the mysticism. Humans come from thousands of generations of mysticism, in the ancient forms of: numerology, runes, shamanism, voodoo, hoodoo, prayer, divine providence (as luck), divine grace (as luck,) spiritual, supernatural, psychic, omens, amulets, charms, rituals and spells, just to mention a few.

All of this 'conditioning' doesn't just disappear overnight when math figures are presented as the Absolute. Such as with variance. Variance may be mathematically provable by you and others, but still no expert is able to guarantee that my double down is going to be a winner, nor my splits, nor can you guarantee that even when the count is well in my favor, that I am certain to get the card I need, now. Of course, either can a shaman!

I am probably never going to fully understand variance, nor any math beyond the fairly basic. Amazingly enough, for me, I do OK at blackjack. I can count well enough, divide, subtract and add, plus hold a meaningless conversation, keep a sneaky eye on the pit, keep moving, Wonging sometimes and have some fun too, all at the same time occasionally. I think I may be a 'moderately successful hobbyist.'

Now if I studied hard and became very, very math-informed, would that mean I could jump several rungs upwards from where I am at the moment? Like to the very top HR level of BJ success? If you say yes to that question, I promise to throw away my lucky rabbits foot and my dead Grandad's gold tooth!

"Now if I studied hard and became very, very math-informed, would that mean I could jump several rungs upwards from where I am at the moment?"

A virtual myriad of fine mathematicians from Thorpe and Revere to Schlesinger and Cacarulo have done, and will continue, to provide you with the tools to improve your performance in beating this game. In fact, all the math you need to know is simple elementary school arithmetics.

Look at it this way, I don't have the foggiest idea how the mechanics of the internet work, yet here I am posting on it almost daily ;)
We are all the beneficiaries of these brilliant men's work.

Cobbson

I wish that I could recall the precise quotation, but Albert Einstein once said something to the effect that one need not waste their time learning how to do complex math or memorizing formulae because as Cobbson said -- "It has been done for you"

The old story is this:

Einstein's colleagues asked him for his telephone number one day. Einstein reached for a telephone directory and looked it up. "You don't remember your own number?" the man asked, startled.

"No," Einstein answered. "Why should I memorize something I can so easily get from a book?"

(In fact, it's claimed that Einstein claimed never to memorize anything which could be looked up in less than two minutes.)

Now that arguably the finest science mind/brain in human history to date - Albert Einstein - has been mentioned here, here are some of his famous quotes, which seem to indicate he may have been also something of a mystic:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"I never came upon any of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking."

Concerning quote #4, one may well ask from where did his discoveries come from then? Obviously not from the inferred 'process of irrational thinking'.

Perhaps the 'brilliant minds' that Cobbson wrote of, received 'help' from Albert's same source, in their blackjack math-quests. Can you shed any light here, Don? ETFan?

My point in all this is: Does having a brilliant math/science brain/mind, (if I have one) mean that I will be successful (and ultimately rich) from actual blackjack play over a long period? (I am not being impertinent nor disrespectful here. But who better to ask such a question than Don or ETFan?)

"Counting cards is easy. Making money counting cards is the difficult part"

Stanford Wong telling B. Jay Cobbson the reality of card counting in their first meeting in 2006.

"Maybe it's news to Wiki, because when I googled probability theory, nowhere in their long ramble did I spot the word, 'luck.' Although several times 'random variable' and 'convergence random variable' are used. Now why do you suppose they would apparently deliberately avoid the word "luck"? You have no problem linking that word with probability theory."

Some book titles for you:

Reasoning about luck: probability and its uses in physics by Vinay Ambegaokar

Luck and judgement: a classroom approach to probability and statistics; by Mathematics for the Majority (Project)

Lady Luck: The Theory of Probability (Science Study Series.) by Warren Weaver

You might want to pick up a copy of that last one. Might be better than getting all your information from the internet.

ETF

... an old title: "Chance, Luck and Statistics," by Horace Levinson, and a newer one: "Probabilities in Everyday Life," by John D. McGervey.

Both are easy, entertaining reads.

Don

In my never-ending quest for personal improvement, I always appreciate tips from reputable way-showers, such as you guys, Don and ETFan.

Those books should keep me quiet and busy for quite a while...

Bootlegger, even though you may have been outflanked by superior math forces in that recent variance discussion, your input is also highly valued. You may have been math-trumped for that hand, but like in the card-game, Bridge, there is always another hand. We all have our strong and not-so-strong suits, in this card-game called...life!

I noted a loud silence on opinion regarding whether Albert may have been more mystic than scientist.

"I noted a loud silence on opinion regarding whether Albert may have been more mystic than scientist."

Breaking that silence, I will respond, categorically, that Einstein was, as the historical evidence shows, a materialist. He sometimes backed a little in awe before the enormity of the consequences of what he himself was claiming (viz. "dice") but he was not a mystic in any sense of the word.

He never kept anything mystic anyway (mystic : secret, Gr.)...