- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Professor wrote:Ok boys mixed in with the math I am seeing insults AGAIN. Last chance to tone it down before we lock the thread.
I kinda think everyone has made their case and you all arent going to agree anyway, so it may make more sense to lock this down and move on to other business rather then ruffle feathers. What say you?
I am in 100% agreement with that
I am in no mood to tutor math
Prof – I dont see the problem with keeping it open? We’re only talking amongst ourselves, not affecting anyone else.
In any case, please could you leave it open until Nick has answered my question. It’s a really simple question, just needs a yes or no.
nick777 wrote:howard – no doubt the dimmest bulb in this bright ensemblehis math skills come to the conclusion that standing returns 3.85 as much
Nick, let me just ask again. Maybe you missed it last time.
You said:
“howard’s math skills come to the conclusion that standing returns 3.85 as much”I said:
“Michael Shackleford, Stanford Wong and Arnold Snyder say that standing provides 3.85 times as much profit for that hand.”Please can you just admit that you are saying that Stanford Wong, Arnold Snyder and Michael Shackleford are idiots? I mean, you said as much above, but I’d just like you to say it explicitly. Come on, Prof might lock this thread soon. You know you believe it, why not just say it?
nick777 wrote:his 0.70 is in actuality 0.675Nick, ignoring my explanations doesn’t make them go away. I have explained this many times. Numbers differ according to rules:
0.70 = Multideck stand on soft 17
0.68 = Multideck hit on soft 17Given your difficulty understanding the math, we have been keeping things simple. We don’t explain the rules with every post, and we often choose the more simple rules.
nick777 wrote:there are no variables here, we know the rules of the game in question from page 1, 4 decks, dealer hits soft 17, splits allowed, etcThen why did you post data for using single deck? And post links to pages using the stand on soft 17 rule.
nick777 wrote:first erroneous batch of numbers stated 1.12 return for splitting, 1.4 return for standinglatest edition states 0.70 for splitting, 1.35 for standing
so it went from returning 1.25 times as much to returning 1.93 times as much
You are the only one who posted the latter two numbers. You have posted many different numbers and used many different formulas. My numbers have been consistent.
~0.70 vs ~0.56 for no resplits (Or 1.4 and 1.12 if you multiply both nums by 2, for playing 2 hands)
~0.70 vs ~0.46 for with resplits
The above nums include multideck and stand on soft 17. If you want to switch to hit on soft 17, then there is a slight difference in nums. You pointed out 0.68 instead of 0.70. Standing is still the clear winner.
Once again it is you nolan who is purposely posting incorrect numbers, and you know they are incorrect, that makes you a dispiccable character
I made one mistake earlier with my math which i acknowledged and corrected, i didn’t edit it to look all rosy
That mistake was that i calculated i would win all 4 of my hands 65% of the time which produced an unreasonable return.
However, after i realized my mistake i posted the correct equation on page 12, and page 13
Would you like to see it again ?
Apparently you guys are too thick to realize that it is you who are in disagreement with the mathematicians, not me
MichaelBlueJay, do you think there’s any chance you could ask Michael Shackleford to post here? Just one line would do: “The figures quoted are the total return taking into account resplits and multiple hands, and standing on 10,10v6 is very much better than splitting”
I know it’s utterly pointless, just as this entire thread is, and not in the slightest bit worth his time, but seriously. This is beyond a joke.
I do not physically understand how any human being can be so obtuse. It defies belief.
However, Nick has refused to call Michael Shackleford and the rest an idiot, and it would appear that he thinks that it is us who are in disagreement with the professional mathematicians.
So if we could have a renowned professional mathematician come here and point out the errors, maybe that would lay all this to rest.
I don’t care about nick, but I still worry that there may be independent observers reading this thread and thinking that there’s a possibility that nick is right. That would be a grave injustice.
PS. Nolan, I know you’re a real mathematician so don’t take offence – I’m just not sure what options are left to get through nick’s cranium. Given that Nick won’t call Shackleford an idiot, despite the fact that he will call me an idiot for quoting the same figures, perhaps having a ‘celebrity’ mathematician here would help. Probably still not, but it’d be fun to watch.
Nolan, why are you continuing to engage Nick about the specific math? He’s never shown that he understands anything you’ve said, and he consistently ignores the most important points. How many dozen times have you told him that the EV is calculated on the basis of the initial bet only, and that the calculations take into account playing two hands and resplits, only to have him respond, “You are failing to take into account playing two hands!” ?
The more you deconstruct his bad math, the more he keeps posting bad math, and keeps falsely repeating that you’re not considering multi-handed play, although you’ve addressed that nearly a dozen times now.
What’s sad is that by arguing about the specific math, he’s actually managed to convince some people here (who really ought to know better) that he might be right. So why engage him? Why give him that forum? If he would debate the math with you honestly, acknowledging what you’re saying and taking it into account, then of course it would make sense to continue the discussion. But when instead he ignores most of what you’re saying, cherry-picks bits to nit-pick over, and insults everyone in the process, what is there to be gained by continuing this? You’ll just correct his bad formula, and he’ll incorrectly complain that you used the wrong constant because he doesn’t know how to read an EV table, or he’ll incorrectly say you’re wrong because you didn’t multiply the EV by 2 or by 4. It’s an easy game for him to play, and you’re just giving him the material to do so.
That’s why I’ve never been specific about the math in this thread. Any math you post, he ignores, misunderstands, or distorts. I’ve thus seen no value in correcting his formulas, because he never acknowledges the substance of what you’re saying. I had no desire to tilt against that particular windmill.
I suggest you stop engaging him on the math, because you’re getting nowhere with it. He’s demonstrated beyond any doubt that he’s not willing to listen to you. I think we should all just focus on pressing him to provide some concrete evidence for what he’s saying. That’s what I’ve been trying to do, but it’s been easily derailed by your continuing to engage him on the math, which lets him continue his games. I suggest you cut off his fuel supply. Let’s concentrate on getting him to give us some evidence, not an endless stream of horribly mangled formulas.
nick777 wrote:Once again it is you nolan who is purposely posting incorrect numbers, and you know they are incorrect, that makes you a dispiccable character
That fact that you disagree with standing on a pair of 10s and want to see numbers that favor splitting doesn’t make my numbers incorrect. You didn’t even list a reason, wow.Why do you think my sims with 200 million hands gave the same numbers above? Why do you think my hand calcs gave the numbers listed above? Why do you think several external pages that we’ve linked to list the same numbers? Why do you think Wizard’s page at http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix1.html lists the same numbers? Are all of these sources intentionally posting incorrect data?
Perhaps it is a big conspiracy. All blackjack experts around the world decided to say that you should stand on pair of 10s. They knew you should split, but the casinos convinced them to hide the truth. For decades that kept this secret hidden. The even got into my computer sims and my hand calcs. Man, those guys are good! But finally after many decades, Nick777 has uncovered the truth through his advanced math skills!
Go on Michael, get the other Michael here. You know you want to see the bloodbath. (Ok, you know I want to see the bloodbath)
As you say, it is easy for Nick to distort and manipulate the facts to his own bizarre ends, and there may be people reading who don’t know better. You’d think the pure weight of numbers (nick, versus the entire educated world) would sway them, but you can’t be sure.
He calls me a fool for quoting Shackleford’s figures, seemingly on the pretence that I don’t understand them.
I’d just love to get Shackleford here and see Nick call him an idiot.
PS. Prof, please don’t lock the thread. I apologise for any name calling, even though it was just in kind. Personally I don’t see the problem if nick and I want to insult each other, it’s not directed at anyone else. But I won’t use the ‘S’ or ‘I’ words any more, promise.
If a player splits tens at a table I am sitting at I either leave or stop betting until he inevitibly runs out of chips in a few hands. I dont know of anyone who would advocate splitting tens that has played Blackjack. It’s bad karma and it can ruin otherwise winning hands for everyone else sitting at that table. Kids PLEASE dont do this at a land based casino. PLEASE. If you just have to do it, then by all means do it online where its only your money going down the toilet.
Debating this seems totally nonsensical to me.
Now if no one else has anything of use to say lets move on to something else. I wont lock the thread as long as things stay civil. But everyone in this discussion seems to be locked in to their positions and I doubt anything productive is going to come out of this.
You guys are testing my patience, in particular nolan
I am under the assumption that you know that if you posted the correct figures i would be proven right, which is why you are deliberately posting incorrect data
Get one thing straight
0.675 is indisputable fact, it is not 0.70 like you said earlier, it is not even 0.68, it is 0.675, the hand is made, you know your final total, and you know your odds of getting beat.
So it is you who is in disagreement with the mathematicians, not me
You comprende
In addition
You are not splitting 10’s, breaking up a 20 hand, you are, but you don’t look at it that way
You are attacking the dealer’s 6 upcard, since it is the worst card he can have for his draw, and alternatively the best for you the player.
Nolan, it’s bait. Don’t take it.
MichaelBluejay wrote:Nolan, it’s bait. Don’t take it.That’s right, don’t do it, listen to your buddy, he finally got one thing right
Professor wrote:Debating this seems totally nonsensical to me.I do agree, there’s absolutely no EV in this.
But it’s an interesting anthropological study, I really believe Nick is one of a kind. It’s fascinating to watch. Although I do keep wondering if someone is suddenly going to jump out and shout “Candid camera” and reveal this was all a huge windup. I hope they do actually, that would be a lot less scary than believing that Nick really is like this.
But assuming that doesn’t happen, I do worry that someone might look at nick’s post count and think perhaps he’s got a point in this argument. That would be doing a grave dis-service to your readers.
Not that there’s much more that can be added now. I take it Michael won’t get the other Michael to post here
That’s a shame, it would have been amusing.Nicks bag is Sportsbetting not Blackjack. But I think he enjoys a good debate wether it makes any sense or not thats why we have all this chatter over a basic non subject.
Nick why not move into a different area like “Why the hell does Tom Coughlin STILL have a job?” or “Was Tony Romo paid to drop that damned ball?” Now those are two subjects I would love to see thrown around.
I wonder why Ken from Blackjackinfo hasn’t popped by to throw his two cents into the pot or did he do so earlier and run screaming into the night?
