- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hey nick
to be honest i WOULD love it if i was wrong here as it most def would be a revelation for me and change the way i think/work out about maths.
Im a almost qualified chartered accountant (CIMA) so my maths is ok – but no where near even a pure maths degree level and light years from a masters
im just really interested whos right lol
Lets get the wizard up here to slobber over this
All kidding aside, i took digs at the man, when really all he did was provide players with sound statistical probabilities, unfortunately for everyone if you wanna join me up in the champs lounge, you need advanced technology, and that’s where i come in to pick up the slack, and take over for the wizard.
First i will explain his formula
What you need to remember is that his formula is based on playing only one hand at a time
Keep that in mind, because after i’m done even the simplest mind should be able to make sense of this
Standing = 0.85 (will win 85% of the time)
Splitting = 0.64 (will win 64% of the time)The wizards formula for one hand play in this situation is this
Standing – (0.85 x 1 = 0.85) – (0.15 x 1 = 0.15) = 0.70
Splitting – (0.64 x 2 x 1 = 1.28) – (0.36 x 2 x 1 = 0.72) = 0.56
Which you have all been saying over and over again, without even questioning the fact that your math could be wrong)
Well, your math is not wrong, those are the correct numbers, as Darko just posted.
But
The correct formula for 2 handed play in this situation is this
Standing – (0.85 x 2 x 1 = 1.7) – (0.15 x 2 x 1 = 0.3) = 1.4
Splitting – (0.64 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 15.36) – (0.36 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 8.64) = 6.72
Huge difference
And that my friends is the only correct formula to apply to this situation
It’s called the probability factor
Now you know why they call me the champ
hey,
Interesting idea but wouldn’t that mean
1.4 for not splitting = $140 profit per round (2 x .70) (which i agree)
6.72 for splitting = $672 profit per round (but the max profit to be won is only $400 and thats if you won 100% of the time) ?
.
.
.
.
.LOL you think your right, i think im/were right
The only way to really resolve is somone independant (and maybe not the wizard) needs to come here and tell us the who’s right – otherwise this WILL go on forever.
i love it when people debate and give there reasoning for there thoughts and conclusions – if we all thought the same way, life would be pretty boring
darko123 wrote:hey,Interesting idea but wouldn’t that mean
1.4 for not splitting = $140 profit per round (2 x .70) (which i agree)
6.72 for splitting = $672 profit per round (but the max profit to be won is only $400 and thats if you won 100% of the time) ?
It’s not an idea, it’s a fact that any mathmetician will confirm
Before i go on
How about a nice round of applause for my opponents, in particular, michael and nolan who battled gallantly to the bitter end
It’s the roi(return on investment) that is 6.72 compared to 1.4
as opposed to playing one hand where the roi is 0.56 compared to 0.7
it’s the only formula that can be applied to this situation
If you want any more answers, dig up Einstein, leave me alone i’m tired, i’m seriously done with this thread
To answer your question quickly, you have to factor in that you have 4 favoured hands up against one significantly weaker hand
Whereas splitting one hand gives you 2 favoured hands vs 1 weaker hand, and since the standing 20 hand is such a big favourite, it’s not enough to make your split profitable, but it’s those 4 favoured hands vs the one weaker hand that make the split on 2 hands much more profitable in the long run.
nick777 wrote:I really wanted to make it as easy as possible to follow, but my pal nolan has limited mental capacity with regards to this situation, he only knows what the wizard tells him, and the wizard has nothing on his site about this particular situation
I only know what the wizard tells me?! Does the wizard tell me the results of the simulations I ran with 100s of millions of hands? Why do you think I double checked results with the 8s split to confirm values? The wizard did not tell me any of the formulas I listed and used to confirm numbers. It’s common sense.To say the Wizard of Odds has nothing on his site about optimal strategy for splitting cards is more total nonsense.
nick777 wrote:Keep that in mind, because after i’m done even the simplest mind should be able to make sense of thisStanding = 0.85 (will win 85% of the time)
Splitting = 0.64 (will win 64% of the time)The wizards formula for one hand play in this situation is this
Standing – (0.85 x 1 = 0.85) – (0.15 x 1 = 0.15) = 0.70
Splitting – (0.64 x 2 x 1 = 1.28) – (0.36 x 2 x 1 = 0.72) = 0.56
Which you have all been saying over and over again, without even questioning the fact that your math could be wrong)
Well, your math is not wrong, those are the correct numbers, as Darko just posted.
But
The correct formula for 2 handed play in this situation is this
Standing – (0.85 x 2 x 1 = 1.7) – (0.15 x 2 x 1 = 0.3) = 1.4
Splitting – (0.64 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 15.36) – (0.36 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 8.64) = 6.72
Where do you get this nonsense? Why in the world would you multiply by 4 factorial, rather than the number of hands?Let’s think about your results .. If you split to 4 hands, your average return is 6.72 x Initial bet. Your average return is larger than your overall bet size (4 x Initial bet). Hopefully something about that statement sounds wrong to you.
Dominique, why on earth are you reprimanding Nolan and not Nick?! Nick has been insulting people willy-nilly left and right for this entire thread, and when you finally weigh in with a reprimand it’s directed at someone who’s been the perfect picture of restraint!
Here’s a sampling of what Nick has been saying, starting at post #58 and ending at your reprimand of Nolan:
Nick777 wrote:“He’s a bit slow.” (Post #58)“And Mikey [sic] pissed me off all the way from Texas.” (#58)
“Is this math really so hard for you to comprehend” (#65)
“There is something seriously wrong with America’s school system.” (#67)
“Mikey [sic], you’d better keep your cash for your further education expenses.” (#70)
“If you had some good brains in your head you’d get on it too, and lose that wizard chump.” (#70)
“Damn, you are beyond help. Read my lips…” (#72)
“Go write a letter to your Wizard and tell him to get his math right.” (#72)
“I gotta admit Nolan, you are definitely one of the dimmer wits i’ve come across” (#75)
“What makes it most interesting is that even when presented with the proper formula, you still can’t seem to follow” (#75)
“You are deliberately trying to misinform people, like your mentor, the Wizard, by putting up unfactual numbers that support your theory, and trying to save face.” (#75)
“buddy is getting some very undeserving back links for being such a go off, maybe that was his plan the whole time” (#76)
“but in this case it is truly deserving, and i will make you look even stupider than you are already doing to yourself” (#79)
“Second, try to follow, it might be a bit advanced for you” (#79)
“Hey Mikey [sic]” (#82)
“Since you put your foot in your mouth, it’s only natural you would wanna try to get it out of there, again, not my problem.” (#84)
Great job there, Dominique.
Dominique wrote:Nolan, now you are out of line.Argue strategies and math all you like, but no name calling.
What is the matter with you people?
I wrote, “Only a complete fool would ignore doubling your bet on a split when computing optimal strategy or expected return.” Nick is not ignoring doubling your bet on a split (he repeats it over and over with every post), so my post was not calling him a fool. I did say I thought he was a troll, but I did not mean it in a name calling sense. I meant it as a forum troll. Note the definition of troll at http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp :“An “Internet troll” or “Forum Troll” is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.”
The professor already reprimanded Nick, who is already on probation. That means the professor is monitoring him and it’s out of my hands.
I reprimand everyone who takes digs at people, including you for this one:
Great job there, Dominique.
Watch it, the lot of you.
Stop worrying about the people and worry about the topic.
It takes more than one person to make a flame. One person is just a raving xxxxx and everyone can see that. It’s when others allow themselves to be baited or join into the melee that you have a flame.
Nick777 wrote:I thought you wanted a shot at the title buddy, i guess i misunderstoodAnd how. All I’ve ever suggested that we wager on is your *blackjack strategy*. How exactly can you “misunderstand” that to mean that I wanted to bet on sports or poker?!
And if you’re willing to wager on sports or poker, why are you NOT willing to wager on what you’re actually arguing about? (your blackjack strategy)
Quote:As far as credentials go, they mean nothing, millions of people have themYes, but the point is that *EVERY SINGLE* credentialed expert disagrees with your analysis. Every last one of them, not just the Wizard, ALL OF THEM. It’s easy for you to take potshots at the Wizard, but are you saying that they’re ALL wrong, and that you alone have figured out what EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE of these experts have missed? Are you really saying that?
Quote:It’s not an idea, it’s a fact that any mathmetician will confirmNow wait a minute, earlier you were dismissing the idea that mathematicians might actually know something about math, so why are you now suddenly interested in what mathematicians think? Every mathematician on the face of the planet who’s ever looked at the game of blackjack would agree that you stand on 10,10 vs. 6 and you split on 8,8 vs. 10. Do you have any respect for mathematicians’ analysis or not?
Quote:All these little details which favour my system are completely overlooked by your wizard, he does not combine all the favourable circumstances, like you’re supposed to do.And how exactly did you come to that fantastic conclusion? The whole *basis* of the Wizard’s work is to consider every possible event in a round of play. What exactly is your evidence that he does NOT do this?
Quote:it is quite possible that this guy is a casino stooly, and guys like you spread rumours of plotted instances where he got barred for being so good.Now you’re insulting both the Wizard and I in the same breath, saying that he’s a turncoat and that I’m a liar. This is offensive beyond description.
Quote:I mean if you know the guy, then by all means ask him, i am not one to back down from a challengeAre you kidding? You’ve backed away from the challenge to a wager on this topic each and every time I’ve offered it. I’ll offer it again: Let’s bet on your blackjack strategy. I’ll deal 10,10 vs. 6 and 8,8 vs. 10 hands to you and you can play your strategy, then you deal the same hands to me and I’ll play my strategy. Name the stakes and the city — if you’re really “not one to back down from a challenge”. I’m challenging you. Will you accept?
As far as asking the Wizard how he does his analysis, I know how he does his blackjack analyses: He uses a recursive Excel spreadsheet to calculate all possible events in every possible hand, and he also writes simulations in C++ that consider every possible event in every possible hand.
Quote:I don’t know what part of what i said you could possibly disputeOh, I don’t know, maybe the bit about how you know better than every credentialed blackjack expert on the face of the planet. Yeah, maybe I dispute that.
You answered my question #1 above by stating that your math skills are better than a university math professor. An odd answer, but you did answer it. Now let’s see how you answer the other questions:
(2) Are you aware that every single other bona-fide blackjack expert has taken the exact same position as the Wizard? (And by “expert” I’m talking about people with advanced university degrees or who undisputably made their living playing blackjack professionally.) Do you know that there is 100% unanimous agreement among the experts about the position the Wizard (and Nolan and I) are taking?
(3) Those experts include Dr. Edward Thorp, Lawrence Revere, Ken Uston, Ian Andersen, Dr. Olaf Vancura, and Stanford Wong. Are you saying that each and every one of these (rather famous, successful, and well-educated) blackjack experts is wrong, and *you alone* have the correct analysis that all these experts fail to comprehend? Are you, Nick777, really smarter than all these people? You’ve figured it out, while all the blackjack pros and math professors are wrong? Is that really what you’re saying?
(4) Can you name even one person who supports your position who either (a) makes their living at blackjack, or (b) has an advanced degree in math? (And for (a), it should of course be someone who is willing to put their money where their mouth is by accepting a wager.) Can you name even one such person on the face of the whole planet?
You have a whole lot of time on your hands hey Michael.
NolanA wrote:“An “Internet troll” or “Forum Troll” is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.”Hmmm, Nolan, I have to admit that description fits pretty well.
And, yes Michael, those remarks are pretty infuriating.
I still wish you guys were above being baited so crudely.
What’s your problem Dom
I was trying to prove a point, which i did
There are people here who would appreciate some good gambling insight.
It serves me no greater purpose to help anyone here with gambling advice, but when complete strangers jump in and start demeaning my gambling knowledge, they can face the consequences
As far as this place is concerned, i have learned to live without it and use it for business only when necessary, which is what i believe it is meant for
I am not in any way responsible for the path course this thread has taken, i was offering an alternative play strategy for this situation to a member i have had previous contact with.
Then these boneheads thinking they were smart jumped in to not only question my theory, but completely shun it, without any mathematical background or knowledge to support their stance.
I don’t mind talking about gambling with people here, as i have done in the past, and which some people found helpful.
But i will not do that anymore, business only when necessary
I will not get caught up in a situation like this again, and do not expect to see me being an active member here
Let me just say, i don’t like you as much as you don’t like me
But this is a place of business, and i have some very respectable gambling sites that gamblers appreciate, and that more than qualifies me as someone who belongs in a community like this, just don’t expect any warm greetings at the upcoming CAC conventions from me.
Lou, i’m outta here, maybe i’ll buy one of your links as a good will gesture
I don’t have a problem, Nick.
Not with you, not even with your theories.
I have a problem with name calling. It is not allowed here.
You can hardly make one post without calling people names. I know there is Asperger syndrome which causes people to express themselves that way, but I have never seen this expressed in writing. I guess that doesn’t mean it can’t happen, although one would think the concentration needed to formulate and type would hamper outbursts caused by Aspergers.
So there is some other problem at work here. Perhaps you just enjoy being abusive, or perhaps you enjoy the resulting uproar.
I will not get caught up in a situation like this again, and do not expect to see me being an active member here
That sounds like a good idea. Maybe someday you will learn to censor your own posts and keep the facts and discard the references to what you think of others. At that time you may be a productive member of a professional board.
Hi again all,
you know I’d have bet the farm upon reading the first post to this thread that it wouldn’t have went 3 pages.
It just wasn’t that important of a situation in the first place and I don’t say that to put down the starter of this thread (can’t remember who it was now) … but I’m sure they’d agree.
I do think though at this point …. that there is an important point to be learned here. I’m saying this not sure who started throwing out colorful expressions first: so don’t nobody think I’m picking on any one person.
But it occurs to me how a rather “tongue in cheek” thread ends in one member volunteering to not be around as much… / a moderator who likely is more upset that she deserves to be … / and an auora (that spelled right?) that will likely leave more than one person a bit more intimidated than previously … about posting anything they’re not proof-positive about
and its really not CAP-like to get to this point.
Because written words can be so easily misunderstood in the nature they were intended … we … and I’m as guilty or more than anybody … must be very careful to avoid using words that obviously can cause this to happen.
I say this from having learned the hard way more than once.
Thank you all for your consideration in this matter
