Thank you for the kind words.
I would prefer not to make a duplicate post in this case, partly as a matter of internet etiquette. It is my understanding that I am perfectly free to repost elsewhere if I wish, but I feel some obligation to any member who may have subjected my post to a careful reading on the implicit understanding that it would not be receiving similar attention elsewhere and potentially consuming their valuable time unnecessarily. I also feel that Stanford, in giving the POM award is entitled to some reciprocal benefit, such as it is, in the form of the post being archived at his site. While the monetary value of the POM award may be small, I consider the honor considerable. (Actually, considering the miniscule sales that could be expected from trying to turn ST material into a book, perhaps the monetary reward is more than ample, also. ;-))
I had a couple of reasons for making the post in question at bj21, rather than elsewhere. First, it is a very theoretical post, so either bjmath or bj21's theory page seemed the obvious choices. Since bj21 is one of the main places I have posted (along with CC.com and CCCafe), I considered it to be the logical choice.
Second, because the post grew out of my attempt to answer someone's very insightful question, part of my motivation for posting was to double check that there were no flaws in my reasoning. While I was confident that my working was sound, it reassured me that any serious errors would be picked up by one of the theory experts on that page (some of whom are CCCafe and/or CC.com posters).
I should briefly respond to the well reasoned post of ANS above. To be honest, the sensitivity of the material, IMO, is not really a concern. If I had considered it overly sensitive, I would not have posted it anywhere, since it is really no more secure at bj21 than anywhere else. I may be wrong, but I really do not see how knowledge of the NRS formula can significantly enhance the ability of casino surveillance to identify shuffle trackers. There are certainly ways of detecting shuffle tracking, which I will obviously not go into, but IMO knowledge of the NRS formula does very little to assist this detection. Moreover, my post is simply an extention of the fundamental NRS results that have been in the public domain for quite a long time. I don't think the post adds much from the perspective of those engaged in detection, though hopefully it is of benefit to players. I would, however, be interested to know the opinion of C V Cellini, or other similarly qualified people, on this matter.
I hope my reticence in this instance can be understood.
Regards,
Ted
LTC