The Parity Problem - A preview

Heres a preview of whats to come in the near future. I need you all to help me confirm this.

https://
imgoat.com
/uploads
/385974ed59
/139631.gif

I don't understand the meaning of this.

Quote: nanumula

I don't understand the meaning of this.

this is a new type of counting system, much easier than any other out there, specifically for the md3 shuffle master shuffle machines

Quote: heatmap

this is a new type of counting system, much easier than any other out there, specifically for the md3 shuffle master shuffle machines

Because every other hand is good to have? So you count how many hands are dealt and whether you have and odd or even had? I don’t follow.

Quote: unJon

Because every other hand is good to have? So you count how many hands are dealt and whether you have and odd or even had? I don’t follow.

what you observe in this example is true and you are correct.

this doesnt say that you will win at ALL though.

the way that the AMOUNT of wins and losses are controlled though, is with another parity problem.

Quote: heatmap

what you observe in this example is true and you are correct.

this doesnt say that you will win at ALL though.

the way that the AMOUNT of wins and losses are controlled though, is with another parity problem.

What’s the theory that “parity” is a useful concept for counting?

Quote: unJon

What’s the theory that “parity” is a useful concept for counting?

well, this is specifically for shuffle master md3 machines and not applicable to any hand shuffled games.

parity is NOT a useful concept for counting unless you happen to be at the mercy of one of the machines.

in this case though, parity is the key factor which allows a controllable house edge.

So at the end of the day is this another thread claiming the MD3 shufflers are "rigged" essentially... even if they're "fairly rigged" to ensure your number of won and loss hands meets a specific quota?

I assume there's much more specific data, example videos, and predictions/experiments to prove all of this???

Quote: Romes

So at the end of the day is this another thread claiming the MD3 shufflers are "rigged" essentially... even if they're "fairly rigged" to ensure your number of won and loss hands meets a specific quota?

I assume there's much more specific data, example videos, and predictions/experiments to prove all of this???

this is how the house edge is ensured, and i have even made a post about this but, there is no such thing as the word "rigged". At least legally defined. In my state, there is procedures to ensure fairness when cards are being handled. But in my opinion, there is nothing legally defining how the randomization is allowed to be generated. Just that they must pass the various tests required by the governing body, and those tests are very general. They must submit the actual source code and the hash that is generated when compiling the code, but that doesnt mean that they will understand what is going on in the source code,or that it even matters if its not defined as being illegal.

im not saying any of this is wrong, legally. im trying to get past that conspiracy stuff and generate a real world physical conversation, where people assume that what im saying is correct, and look for what im saying, and if im wrong tell me im wrong.

So you didn't respond to my idea... why not take a friend, play 2 hands, then PB leaves, you add a hand, and you friend in 3b table maxes and CLEANS HOUSE?

Quote: Romes

So you didn't respond to my idea... why not take a friend, play 2 hands, then PB leaves, you add a hand, and you friend in 3b table maxes and CLEANS HOUSE?

You meant to post this in the OTHER thread about non random card shufflers.

Quote: Romes

So you didn't respond to my idea... why not take a friend, play 2 hands, then PB leaves, you add a hand, and you friend in 3b table maxes and CLEANS HOUSE?

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/30781-hypothetic-legal-advice/3/

scroll down to my response to once dear

and to actually answer your question, most of the time, adding another hand results in a push. and i dont need to add a hand in order to perform the trick any more, if the correct amount of parity has been taken out of the round.

Quote: heatmap

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/30781-hypothetic-legal-advice/3/

scroll down to my response to once dear

and to actually answer your question, most of the time, adding another hand results in a push. and i dont need to add a hand in order to perform the trick any more, if the correct amount of parity has been taken out of the round.

So I read your response, still not sure what your answer here is... You started this thread by saying, essentially, they can program the cards to make the dealer win. Perhaps you mean this every 3rd round, whatever, the point is there is an element of non-randomness to the shuffler and you claim to know what it is. Why on earth would you post about it and not simply make tons and tons of money from it? Even if you don't have a lot of money, if you have the element of non-randomness known, then you're not gambling and you know you will win. If you're also stating that it's an 'over time' edge meaning you need a larger sampling size due to lots of pushes or whatever, then start small and it should take but a week or so for you to just log hours building up your bankroll. Lastly, and probably the best move, would be to get someone with a bankroll to team with, though I would imagine most would see this as a scam... The 'ol "I've got a sure way to win, but I don't have money! Give me money and we can be millionaires!"

For my personal opinion, I don't believe you that the number of people in the hand effects the outcome. i.e. you can trick the shuffler and change the results of "3rd base", in our example, to win more than they're supposed to in the long run. For you to know this, you would have tested it over 50,000-75,000 hands. Then if you did test it properly and there was an advantage, you most certainly would NOT be posting about it online in a public forum... because why not just do what you were doing in your testing with much larger bets, numerous gorilla BP's, etc, etc, and just become a millionaire???

So it clearly has nothing to do with you or your credibility... but you have no proof or evidence, which when making a claim of this nature you really need to corroborate your theory.

Asking heatmap: could you please provide some explanation of what you are claiming and what the image means? The image appears to be a sequence of events at different positions at a blackjack table, but I can't understand much more than that.

Quote: Romes

So I read your response, still not sure what your answer here is... You started this thread by saying, essentially, they can program the cards to make the dealer win. Perhaps you mean this every 3rd round, whatever, the point is there is an element of non-randomness to the shuffler and you claim to know what it is. Why on earth would you post about it and not simply make tons and tons of money from it? Even if you don't have a lot of money, if you have the element of non-randomness known, then you're not gambling and you know you will win. If you're also stating that it's an 'over time' edge meaning you need a larger sampling size due to lots of pushes or whatever, then start small and it should take but a week or so for you to just log hours building up your bankroll. Lastly, and probably the best move, would be to get someone with a bankroll to team with, though I would imagine most would see this as a scam... The 'ol "I've got a sure way to win, but I don't have money! Give me money and we can be millionaires!"

For my personal opinion, I don't believe you that the number of people in the hand effects the outcome. i.e. you can trick the shuffler and change the results of "3rd base", in our example, to win more than they're supposed to in the long run. For you to know this, you would have tested it over 50,000-75,000 hands. Then if you did test it properly and there was an advantage, you most certainly would NOT be posting about it online in a public forum... because why not just do what you were doing in your testing with much larger bets, numerous gorilla BP's, etc, etc, and just become a millionaire???

So it clearly has nothing to do with you or your credibility... but you have no proof or evidence, which when making a claim of this nature you really need to corroborate your theory.

they have already thought of everything in this case and its simply not as profitable as say a hand shuffled deck.

i can get the shoe to perform the same trick every time i play.

you get to a point, such as where you never go below 17, and always have your hand tied behind your back, as if you did something stupid like hit on that 17, it wouldnt matter unless you knew you were on an edge that would lead back to a preferable position. But even then, the rules of blackjack act as a "gas" peddle and even if you stay, and then let the dealer take a chance at a hit because they have that option beyond you of which you cant control, the amount of parity that could have been waiting for the dealer will still possibly place you back into that losing position.

i am going to say that, they have a way to know, depending on how far into the cards you have gotten, that allows them to know if you have exceeded a house edge.

Quote: gordonm888

Asking heatmap: could you please provide some explanation of what you are claiming and what the image means? The image appears to be a sequence of events at different positions at a blackjack table, but I can't understand much more than that.

this image is the sequence, of at most two players playing "blackjack" shuffled from an md3 shuffle machine.

the WLWL, are a depiction of how wins and losses are spread out into the shoe evenly and fairly.

the dealer or the player, are constantly switching positions, when only playing head to head.

when playing head to head, you only hold either position n, or n+1.

on the chart, which is cyclical, after two rounds, it is possible to follow along with whether or not you are going to win or lose next.

so for every player there is an equal and opposite reaction happening in one round.

when you are on any one of the positions, your chances of winning and losing are dependent on the position, because on one of the positions you can have a 75% chance of winning again as well as a 25% chance of losing after, and on the opposite end, 75% chnce of losing again and 25% chance of winning after.

all of this is controlled by parity in my opinion.

Quote: heatmap

they have already thought of everything in this case and its simply not as profitable as say a hand shuffled deck.

i can get the shoe to perform the same trick every time i play.

you get to a point, such as where you never go below 17, and always have your hand tied behind your back, as if you did something stupid like hit on that 17, it wouldnt matter unless you knew you were on an edge that would lead back to a preferable position. But even then, the rules of blackjack act as a "gas" peddle and even if you stay, and then let the dealer take a chance at a hit because they have that option beyond you of which you cant control, the amount of parity that could have been waiting for the dealer will still possibly place you back into that losing position.

i am going to say that, they have a way to know, depending on how far into the cards you have gotten, that allows them to know if you have exceeded a house edge.

You could not be more wrong in your theory. It's just plain ridiculous.


ZCore13