Apologies, Professor and Dominique. I’d certainly not talk in such a manner to anyone else here, but with Nick I would say I am just responding in the manner he understands. I seem to recall he said “if howard is against me, I must be right”, which struck my as delightfully, amusingly arrogant, given he knows nothing about me and I am simply saying the same as 3 other people here by quoting various respected and renowned mathmaticians.
I think Nick thinks that I must be wrong because I made a couple of errors in my calculations and then edited myself to correct that. He seems to regard that as a sign of weakness, whereas the opposite is true. I have never claimed to be an expert – I understand the maths, but I did not create or improve that maths myself. Therefore I rely on the experts that did. By contrast Nick assumes that if his own calculations differ from the experts, it is them who must be wrong. I can’t think of the words to express how ridiculous that stance it is. I used ‘stupid’, but I am sure there are more eloquent ways to express that.
Anyway, I am definitely, finally done after this post. There’s no money, or even pleasure, in arguing with someone who is so pig-headedly arrogant. If he wishes to split 10s, then all power to him. I know he’ll lose more money, but what do I care? I do feel sorry for his visitors if he suggests the same to them, but they’re going to lose money anyway so I suppose it doesn’t much matter.
Nick, if you still hold your views and wish to discuss them, then I suggest you take the time to substantiate them. This is how you can do that:
a) Find one blackjack/gambling expert who agrees with you that you should split 10s against a 6.
b) Find one expert who agrees that it matters (in a NON card counting scenario, i.e. online) how many hands are played; i.e. who agrees that stragegy alters if you play 2 or 3 hands versus 1.
c) Create your own simulation to test the overall effect on House Advantage based on either of the above two variables. Run this for a few hundred million hands and you should get a clear result.
Any of those would be convincing. If you wish to disagree with the established, accepted science, you must be willing to provide a valid proof. It is you who disagrees with the accepted truth, not us, so it is your burden to prove yourself correct.
And saying that the numbers ‘look wrong’ or ‘don’t make sense’ to you means precisely nothing. You might as well say the same about the theory of relativity or Newton’s laws of motion. Unless you have counter-proof, you must assume that it is YOU that is wrong. To do anything else is just, well, stupid. I can’t think of a better word.