Re: Generalized Effects of Removal (and implications)
orestes_mendoza <orestes_mendoza <at> yahoo.com>
2006-12-14 19:11:38 GMT
--- In blackjackcardcounterscafe <at> yahoogroups.com, sage frog
<sagefr0g <at> ...> wrote:
> got it. thank you for the explanation.
> another question if i may. by the term levels of interaction do
you mean that if say one card of a given rank presents and then
another that there may be some effect going on as a result of the
first card having come out that 'corrupts' the tag value of the
second card of the same rank that comes out?
"Corrupts" is not exactly the word: the effect of the second card is
altered (from its single-card tag effect) on a contingency basis by
the first having appeared. Again, the Sevens are the most impressive
example of the phenomenon I found among the two-card, same-rank-only
data. Blackjack is an essentially nonlinear game,
although "linearization" (by one definition or another) does make
substantial progress in making potent generalizations about it. What
I am doing with this concept is tracing the full scope
of "linearization" by a particularly broad (but not unknown within
quantitative disciplines) definition of the term and noting that
single-card tags are only a special case of the broader one.
By "level of interaction," I essentially mean the number of cards you
are removing before computing the cumulative effect and the resulting
number of data points you will produce if you note all possible
combinations of that number of cards. You can compute, for example,
the cumulative effects of any two cards of different ranks (e.g. the
cumulative effect of removing a Six and a Five) and compare them with
their single-card effects to see if you learn something. You can
also proceed to assess the cumulative effects of three-card
combinations, four-card, &c. In general, it's considered junky to
consider effects of a certain level without considering the ones at
lower levels as well. However, it is not as junky to consider
effects of multiples of one rank of card (e.g. four Sevens) without
fully considering all multi-rank EOR's at or beneath that level. It
is also noted that it is possible to err too far in the direction of
specificity, by considering additional levels of interaction past the
point where it is marginally worthwhile.
> err yep those dealer three sevens for a twenty one are like you
say no suprise and definately irratating.
For some reason, dealer hands in my world get weirder than player
hands ever would (I rarely get very far off the beaten track unless
I'm in a DOA, DAS game and get a bunch of bets out at once). On the
same trip as the 7-7-7 dealer trifecta, I witnessed a dealer (who had
been too hot for my taste already that day) pull a seven-card 21. I
asked her sarcastically how often per day she managed to pull a seven-
card 21, but she indicated that her English wasn't sufficient to
converse on the matter.
To unsubscribe from this group, email:
blackjackcardcounterscafe-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
John May-"Get The Edge at Blackjack"http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566251516/johnmayalsoknowa/
New and devastating blackjack methods
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.