- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I get what you’re saying, you’re saying that i will lose more, of course i will, if i use your ridiculous numbers, that nobody can dispute
that 0.3 is actually 0.33 on brands that dont carry the name wizard, but none of that really matters
again, you play dumb pretty good, and i know you’re doing it on purpose
just for the record, the numbers are 0.66(0.33 x 2)when splitting
you just said they are 0.3(0.3 x 2)=0.6, but for 10 pages here you were saying they were 0.56, i guess the odds changed again, at least they changed in my favour this time
you are just too much guy
even with the slight in expected return the overall probability of resplits and playing those extra hands is what returns more in the long run, which is what i said on page 1
your 0.70 number is also in question, its 0.667 on non wizard brands, i guess unlike you, they don’t count a tie as a partial win, which is what you did
your formula is weak and inacurate, as you keep proving
just keep going
aside from that, lets use your numbers and pretend they are correct for a minute
0.47 by splitting
i’m assuming we’re splitting to 6 hands ?
that means im betting 3 x as much per standing hand
(6 x 100 ) vs (2 x 100)
0.47 x 6= 2.82 = win $282 for each $600 bet=$47 for each $100 bet
0.70 x 2 = 1.4 = win $140 for each $200 bet=$70so by placing one bet(one hand) of $600 with a 10 vs a dealer with a 6, i will win $282, but i’m a 65% favourite, i should win $390 on average with this hand
how do you figure
go check your numbers again
nick777 wrote:just for the record, the numbers are 0.66(0.33 x 2)when splittingNo they aren’t. You got those from an obscure web calculator (I say obscure because I have the site did not even have a domain URL) that you programmed with a single-deck. Single-deck drastically distorts results, but that wasn’t all. You multiplied by 2. For about the 7th time, the values are expressed in terms of initial bet size, you do not multiply by 2.
nick777 wrote:you just said they are 0.3(0.3 x 2)=0.6, but for 10 pages here you were saying they were 0.56, i guess the odds changed again, at least they changed in my favour this timeThey only changed because you misquoted your own article… the one you originally linked to — http://www.casino.com/blackjack/article.asp?id=1720. I immediately realized you switched from 64% to 65%. Yet I chose to use that number anyway for the purpose of explaining how to compute an average. The quote from the article is below:
“In 100 tries I expect to win two dollars 64% of the time and lose two dollars 36% of the time thus be ahead $56 ($128-$72). This is a net expectation of 56 cents per hand.”
If we use 64% and 36%, we get 2x(0.64-0.36) = 0.56
nick777 wrote:your 0.70 number is also in question, its 0.667 on non wizard brands, i guess unlike you, they don’t count a tie as a partial win, which is what you didThe non-wizard article linked above is 0.70, my hand calc on page 3 is 0.70, wizard is 0.70. I believe you got the 0.667 from your obscure hand calculator, which you incorrectly programmed to a single-deck. I don’t doubt that odds chage slightly with differences in rules, such as num decks or hit/stand on soft 17. Look at my hand calcs on page 3. I did include pushes, and did not count a tie as partial win. My sim results also do not count a tie as a partial win. I only used the basic win or loss simplification for you because you were having so much trouble understanding the math.
nick777 wrote:your formula is weak and inacurate, as you keep proving
You keep bringing up “my formula”. Do you mean the one I showed you on how to compute an average? Do you mean the hand calcs on page 3? Do you mean how my simulation with 200 million hands works?Again, what you are saying is that somehow having 6 hands each favoured to win equates to a less than 50% win percentage
And again i say that is mathematically impossible
This is what you are saying
65% + 65% + 65% + 65% +65% +65% = 47%
:rasta:
nick777 wrote:Again, what you are saying is that somehow having 6 hands each favoured to win equates to a less than 50% win percentageAnd again i say that is mathematically impossible
This is what you are saying
65% + 65% + 65% + 65% +65% +65% = 47%
:rasta:
It is not a win percentage; it is an expected return. Look a few posts back to see my detailed explanation on how to compute an average (as in an expected return). Note that you need to include losses in this calculation. You said you understood, but it is clear that you did not. Perhaps computing an average is beyond your mathematical ability.Consider a coin flip with a 50% chance of winning and 50% chance of losing. The expected return is 0, as you are not expected to have a net win or net loss over time, so using your logic 50% + 50% + 50% … = 0 . Wait… why doesn’t that work? Because you didn’t consider losses. It becomes (50% -50%) + (50% – 50%)… = 0.
Break out the Calculus books no mention of marginal error what about complex probability? Just teasing I won’t involve myself on this one. Topics and comments are very interesting.
greek39
You look back a few posts buddy, i put it up clearly
Your expected return is 0.47 compared to 0.70, that’s what you say, meaning for every $100 bet you will get back $170 or win $70 by standing, by splitting you will get back $147 or win $47
That is 47%
You are winning 47% of your intitial stake
Case closed
Why do you suppose michael hasn’t posted…because he’s at home with a deck of cards, some chips, playing this thing out, figured out i’m right and keeping his lip zipped about it, i suggest you do the same.
WOW
All this time, the right answer was right there, on the wizard’s website
And i am right
The whole problem this whole time was that nolan is a total go off who can’t read, unf#%nreal
So michael, your beef here is with nolan, not me, i assumed he was saying what the wizard was saying, which is why i considered the wizard a go off, when really it was nolan the whole time who was completely useless
The wizard clearly says that…
Standing = 0.675(x 2) = 1.35
Splitting = 0.35(x4) = 1.40(check that, it says 0.175, it should be 0.35, (0.175 x 2), it might confuse people like nolan as it is a misprint and some people might not know any better)http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9-4dh17r4.html
The other calculator says this
Hit:-0.85222 Stand:0.67576 Double:-1.70445 Split:0.36302
Standing = 0.675(holy identical match batman)(x 2)=1.35
Splitting = 0.72(x 2)=1.44 or 0.36(x 4 hands) = 1.44http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/2009/BJC/Edge.html
To answer nolan’s earlier question as to why those 2 sites using the same formula would have different results, the answer is simple, it’s because you’re a total nimrod who can’t read
You know if it were up to me i’d request a gang beating for you, just for wasting everyones time
Now if you wanna dispute that, please go right ahead, although i would suggest creating a different alias and rejoining this place might be a better option
To finish off this equation properly
Standing = (0.675 x 200 hands) = 135 (x $100/hand) = $13 500
Splitting = (0.36 x 400 hands) = 144 (x $100/hand) = $14 400Resplitting returns even more, unless you want to keep believing nolan, in which case you would lose more money by winning.
nick777 wrote:You look back a few posts buddy, i put it up clearlyYour expected return is 0.47 compared to 0.70, that’s what you say, meaning for every $100 bet you will get back $170 or win $70 by standing, by splitting you will get back $147 or win $47
That is 47%
You are winning 47% of your intitial stake
You have been saying over and over something to the effect of:“My odds in each showdown are 65% to win
Meaning i will win 6.5 of my 10 hands on average
You are saying i will win only 4.7 of my 10 hands”Win rate does not equal expected return. What happens if you win 47% of the time, and lose the other 53% of the time? You won’t get back $147 for every $100 bet. You’ll lose money over time. You’ll lose 47-53% = 6% with every $100 bet. So winning 47% and losing 53% produces an expected return of -0.06 . Similarly, if the expected return is 0.47 or 47% of your initial stake, you will not win 4.7 of the 10 hands. Recall that winning 47% and losing 53% had an expected return of -0.06, not 0.47.
Do you finally see that there is difference between expected return and number of hands won? The numbers are only the same if you don’t consider losses (which you have been doing for many pages).
nick777 wrote:The wizard clearly says that…Standing = 0.675(x 2) = 1.35
Splitting = 0.35(x4) = 1.40(check that, it says 0.175, it should be 0.35, (0.175 x 2), it might confuse people like nolan as it is a misprint and some people might not know any better)You can’t just go around multiplying listed values by whatever numbers you want to get the results you want. Yes, you did finally find a table that does not appear to be based on initial bet size. Given the 0.175 value, it seems to be based on expected gain per split hand. But why in the world would you multiply by 2 twice for a total of 4x. Do you think there are 4x more hands in a split than a stand?!
You’d multiply by the average number of hands… there are 2 hands for the split and 2*4/13 for the resplit in both hands (recall 4/13 odds of drawing a 10 to make a resplit in each of the two split hands)
2 + 2* 4/13 = 2.62 hands on average
2.62 * 0.175 = ~0.46
Does ~0.46 sound familiar? It should because it is the value I have been listing for the past 10 pages, when including resplits!
Seriously Nolan, why do you bother?
This guy is quite possibly the stupidest person I have ever had the misfortune to meet.
Nick, here are some other established mathematical proofs for you. Why don’t you have a think about them and see which bits you disagree with? I’m sure we’d all be very interested to hear your alternative theories, after all a bunch of expert mathematicians and scientists can’t be right all the time, can they? Whereas you – with your impeccable pedigree in the field – are bound to have some interesting new ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras%27_Theoremhoward, you seriouslly dillute anything you have to say with words like “stupidest” though I admit Nick is no better.
bb1webs wrote:howard, you seriouslly dillute anything you have to say with words like “stupidest” though I admit Nick is no better.Why’s that? He is the stupidest person I can recall meeting in recent times.
It’s not because he doesn’t understand the maths – that’s quite understandable and acceptable. My girlfriend doesn’t understand the maths either, and she’s not stupid.
He’s stupid because he thinks that, despite having no knowledge or understanding of the field, he must know better than the established experts. And I’m not talking about myself, Michael or Nolan, I’m talking about those who have studied and reported on gambling mathematics for the last 40 years – whose work is accepted as accurate by everyone. Except Nick, because he thinks he knows better.
Don’t you think that’s stupid? What do you do when your own calculations seem to differ with those of the professors and the text books? Do you assume that they must have made a mistake and that you are right, or do you assume that it’s more likely you have made a mistake, and then try and learn what it is? I know what I would do.
I wonder if he overrules his doctor’s advice because “it doesn’t seem right” to him. I wonder if, when on a plane, he goes up to the cockpit and gives the pilots his opinion on how they should fly the plane. Wouldn’t that be a bit silly? Stupid even?
Well, that’s what he’s doing here.
“These figures that have been accepted by the mathematical community for 40 years look wrong to me, therefore they must be wrong and I must be right. It doesn’t matter that they have been proved, by methods I am unable to replicate, I must be right anyway.”
That’s pure stupidity, and nothing else. Don’t you think?
Ok guys lets keep the conversation focused on Blackjack and the math involved and lets drop the name calling. :dajudge:
geez, there we go again.
What is it with this thread that people can’t distinguish between blackjack and poster’s personalities?
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.
