QFIT
QFIT
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 260
April 18th, 2017 at 9:53:06 AM permalink
The rule in physics is that you should never use more decimals than can be accurately measured or calculated. Indeed, in most cases, if you specify more decimals than can be known, the answer is considered wrong. However, the word "never" suggests that the answer is known to an infinite number of decimals. Physicists are very careful with that word. Theoretically, it is possible for all the oxygen in a room to move to one side of the room for an instant. It's just absurdly unlikely.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 4025
April 18th, 2017 at 9:58:03 AM permalink
Yes, so in the simple case of discussion on an online forums of counting cards in blackjack and the expected value +/- standard deviations I'm quite comfortable using the word "never" or the phrase "mathematical certainty" with regards to a player not being down after X hands. I'm not undervaluing the precision, as I'd still expect it out of any paper/book/etc, but in an online forum with an understood target audience I think a physics level of precision is complete overkill =P.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
QFIT
QFIT
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 260
April 18th, 2017 at 11:36:05 AM permalink
Not incidentally, I have a free calculator which includes N0 at: https://qfit.com/cvcxonlineviewer.htm

The difference in N0 from rule and penetration changes is striking. Merely changing from S17 to H17 can increase N0 by two-thirds. Which is to say, the long run is pushed substantially farther away by seemingly minor changes.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
QFIT
QFIT
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 260
April 18th, 2017 at 11:40:15 AM permalink
Quote: Romes

Yes, so in the simple case of discussion on an online forums of counting cards in blackjack and the expected value +/- standard deviations I'm quite comfortable using the word "never" or the phrase "mathematical certainty" with regards to a player not being down after X hands. I'm not undervaluing the precision, as I'd still expect it out of any paper/book/etc, but in an online forum with an understood target audience I think a physics level of precision is complete overkill =P.



Understood. Problem is, if you say something that is highly unlikely never happens; I can prove that Martingale works.:)

rgds,
norm
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
DiscreteMaths2
DiscreteMaths2
Joined: May 4, 2016
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 237
April 18th, 2017 at 11:43:08 AM permalink
I just wouldn't use the word *impossible*. Because at some point in the history of our universe those extremely unlucky/lucky events still have to occur. Either you believe in independent trials of random processes or you don't. Sure it may seem like splitting hairs semantically but impossible is a far and away from utmost certainty in the grand scheme of things. I think it is always important to make the distinction because it is really that underlying notion of the gambler's fallacy that convinces people to believe betting systems or deviating from perfect strategy when they know better.
Assume the worst, believe no one, and make your move only when you are certain that you are unbeatable or have, at worst, exceptionally good odds in your favor.
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 4025
Thanks for this post from:
LostWages
April 18th, 2017 at 11:46:32 AM permalink
Quote: DiscreteMaths2

I just wouldn't use the word *impossible*. Because at some point in the history of our universe those extremely unlucky/lucky events still have to occur.

My point is when the numbers are so minute... as in "history of the universe" status, then yes, mathematically speaking that's the same thing as 0. After 4 decimal places, no one usually worries anymore.

Hmmm, we're all "gambling folk" here. When people disagree, usually they put their money to the test and that straightens things up quickly. I'll propose the following:

I'll play 100,000 hands of blackjack, spreading 1-12, at a mixture of H17 and S17 games.

I'll bet anyone willing to take it, $25,000 that after 100,000 hands I WILL BE POSITIVE from my starting bankroll.

Anyone willing to book that action? Obv not... making a point (though let me know if someone wants to book that lol).

My other point was that newbies have enough to figure out rather than worrying about the 5th and beyond decimal places of N0 and SD's. Get to "the long run" is a widely preached lesson and it leaves many newbies asking "well, what is the long run???" Eventually, since there are so many different answers (look at my first post) we have to give them an "average" or "rounded" answer to give them an answer they can understand. That was literally the point of this thread, which is why my answer was very specific for the OP asking the question... and yes, still correct. Maybe not 5 decimal places correct, but 4 decimal places correct... lol.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
QFIT
QFIT
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 260
April 18th, 2017 at 11:58:49 AM permalink
Ahh, one must be very careful when framing a bet. I could lead you to a table with a CSM. OTOH, you could still easily win that bet. Just bet $1 until the last few hands, and then use a progression. Progressions are not long-term winners. But, with a $25,000 bonus, they can certainly be positive EV.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 4025
April 18th, 2017 at 12:07:00 PM permalink
Quote: QFIT

Ahh, one must be very careful when framing a bet. I could lead you to a table with a CSM. OTOH, you could still easily win that bet. Just bet $1 until the last few hands, and then use a progression. Progressions are not long-term winners. But, with a $25,000 bonus, they can certainly be positive EV.

Oh, I figured I was covered 10 ways from tuesday, though if someone was seriously interested more details would be drawn up and I was planning on actually counting a real shoe game.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
Dobrij
Dobrij
Joined: Jun 6, 2012
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 75
April 18th, 2017 at 12:07:27 PM permalink
If I had to calculate the probability of the outcome of the game Black-Jack when using a card count, for about 11 thousand hands, avr bet 10$
(The blue line is theoretical, green yellow and red are deviations in 1,2,3 SD )

It seems that you need to play about 15 thousand hands, this is the confidence distance

https://astroblox.com/
DiscreteMaths2
DiscreteMaths2
Joined: May 4, 2016
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 237
April 18th, 2017 at 12:12:01 PM permalink
Yeah Romes I wasn't disagreeing with your advice just merely pointing out an abuse of the word impossible because it leads to confusion when you are studying other things in the world of gambling.
Assume the worst, believe no one, and make your move only when you are certain that you are unbeatable or have, at worst, exceptionally good odds in your favor.

  • Jump to: