luck

[sagefr0g]

lmao, synopsis

lol, you's guys is funny.
but yes a synopsis is at least in order. here's my take on it so far:

A) luck outside casino walls can be extraordinarily significant, luck inside casino walls tends to be mediocre. casino meisters have in a very real sense trapped and contained luck so as to serve their purposes.

B) luck inside casino walls is the standard deviation one can expect on both sides of the statistical bell curve, round about ones expectation. luck is just as predictable, normal, quantifiable and amenable to mathematical calculations as expectation.

C) luck inside casino walls is most significant in the short run and tends to lose it's significance in the long run as the significance of expectation more and more takes precedence. this is helped along by lucks dual nature (ie. good luck and bad luck and how over time one can expect an equal measure of each) and the steadfast singular nature of expectation.

D) practical concerns such as bankroll and skill for a gaming practitioner involves certain limitations, while luck is not so limited. luck is only limited by the degree of likeliness of it's occurrence, additionally the dual nature of luck is not constrained as too the order of how the two sides present over time, nor is the varied degree of likeliness of luck constrained as too the order of how those degrees present over time.
that being the case risk of ruin to some degree is always a real possibility since ones practical resources are limited and could be overwhelmed by the random way that virtually limitless luck can present.
strange but true it's altogether possible that given two gaming practitioners, say one with a large bankroll and a small risk of ruin and one with a small bankroll and a high risk of ruin that one or the other just might get ruined while the other does not, in either case, it would be a matter of luck.
happily at least in the short term the opposite can also be true. where in it may be that limited resources could be greatly bolstered by the freedom by which luck can present in a fortunate way in a virtual limitless manner.

so, well maybe that outline is flawed or stuff left out, but still for whats been outlined maybe some conclusions should be made.
at least one can say that the nature of luck is knowable within certain limits. that being the case one has options with regard to dealing with luck should one be so inclined.

 

[aslan]

strange but true it's altogether possible that given two gaming practitioners, say one with a large bankroll and a small risk of ruin and one with a small bankroll and a high risk of ruin that one or the other just might get ruined while the other does not, in either case, it would be a matter of luck.

But I would temper those words with the observation that the probability of enough bad luck to wipe out the large bankroll with the small risk of ruin is dramatically smaller in comparison to the probability of bad luck wiping out the small bankroll with the high risk of ruin. As in all things, the wise man, or fr0g, whatever, would opt for the smallest risk of losing, assuming either bankroll is equally accessible. If you only have access to a small bankroll and a high risk of ruin, then be cautious if that bankroll is dear, because you are likely to lose it. In fact, if it is dear, I advise you not to gamble it at all.

 

[Katweezel]

Twenty buck weekend

lol, you's guys is funny.
but yes a synopsis is at least in order. here's my take on it so far:

A) luck outside casino walls can be extraordinarily significant, luck inside casino walls tends to be mediocre. casino meisters have in a very real sense trapped and contained luck so as to serve their purposes.

B) luck inside casino walls is the standard deviation one can expect on both sides of the statistical bell curve, round about ones expectation. luck is just as predictable, normal, quantifiable and amenable to mathematical calculations as expectation.

C) luck inside casino walls is most significant in the short run and tends to lose it's significance in the long run as the significance of expectation more and more takes precedence. this is helped along by lucks dual nature (ie. good luck and bad luck and how over time one can expect an equal measure of each) and the steadfast singular nature of expectation.

D) practical concerns such as bankroll and skill for a gaming practitioner involves certain limitations, while luck is not so limited. luck is only limited by the degree of likeliness of it's occurrence, additionally the dual nature of luck is not constrained as too the order of how the two sides present over time, nor is the varied degree of likeliness of luck constrained as too the order of how those degrees present over time.
that being the case risk of ruin to some degree is always a real possibility since ones practical resources are limited and could be overwhelmed by the random way that virtually limitless luck can present.
strange but true it's altogether possible that given two gaming practitioners, say one with a large bankroll and a small risk of ruin and one with a small bankroll and a high risk of ruin that one or the other just might get ruined while the other does not, in either case, it would be a matter of luck.
happily at least in the short term the opposite can also be true. where in it may be that limited resources could be greatly bolstered by the freedom by which luck can present in a fortunate way in a virtual limitless manner.

so, well maybe that outline is flawed or stuff left out, but still for whats been outlined maybe some conclusions should be made.
at least one can say that the nature of luck is knowable within certain limits. that being the case one has options with regard to dealing with luck should one be so inclined.

Sage, thank you for that Sageified Synopsis; which I have printed and stored in my voluminous 'Luck' file cabinet. Is there any charge for those preliminary findings? There is one thing you (or your co-researcher) may be able to help me with; it's in trying to relate these profound principles to an event I had only a tiny bit to do with, way back in the late 1980s.

Steve, a notorious local Townsville, (Queensland) ratbag, after his usual madness with Bundy rum, slots, roulette and the Big Wheel, had just $20 left from that afternoon's paycheck. Silly Steve had not given a moment's thought to rent money, food, petrol or the other things that normal people plan for.

He said to himself: "Self, F**K it! My last twenty goes on blackjack." From this point, I swear this is all true. Even tho Steve had read a BS chart once, he did not really retain much of it. Nothing much of that mattered on this night, when apparently ALL of Steve's lucky planets were aligned, big-time.

With little or no regard for guidelines, advice, common sense, or anything other than his own rum-fuelled ravings, he somehow - and this is likely probably beyond the calculations possibilities of even Don himself - Steve's twenty bucks turned into six grand in hot-streak style in not all that much time at all. For some unknown reason, he decided to stop there; with seemingly the world at his feet, so to speak. (Here is where our Luck Researchers are invited to comment.)

End of story: Steve took his six grand to the hotel reception, where he booked two whole floors of rooms, fully paid; and then the word was spread. Steve threw a party the likes of which Townsville had not seen since colonial days. Drugs, women and alcohol were consumed like their was no tomorrow. (This was in the days when six grand was a fair stash!) For years afterwards, Steve was still boasting about that weekend from Heaven, that cost him... twenty bucks. :cat:

 

[sagefr0g]

that story is plenty of payment lol oops sorry about the lol

Sage, thank you for that Sageified Synopsis; which I have printed and stored in my voluminous 'Luck' file cabinet. Is there any charge for those preliminary findings? There is one thing you (or your co-researcher) may be able to help me with; it's in trying to relate these profound principles to an event I had only a tiny bit to do with, way back in the late 1980s.

Steve, a notorious local Townsville, (Queensland) ratbag, after his usual madness with Bundy rum, slots, roulette and the Big Wheel, had just $20 left from that afternoon's paycheck. Silly Steve had not given a moment's thought to rent money, food, petrol or the other things that normal people plan for.

He said to himself: "Self, F**K it! My last twenty goes on blackjack." From this point, I swear this is all true. Even tho Steve had read a BS chart once, he did not really retain much of it. Nothing much of that mattered on this night, when apparently ALL of Steve's lucky planets were aligned, big-time.

With little or no regard for guidelines, advice, common sense, or anything other than his own rum-fuelled ravings, he somehow - and this is likely probably beyond the calculations possibilities of even Don himself - Steve's twenty bucks turned into six grand in hot-streak style in not all that much time at all. For some unknown reason, he decided to stop there; with seemingly the world at his feet, so to speak. (Here is where our Luck Researchers are invited to comment.)

End of story: Steve took his six grand to the hotel reception, where he booked two whole floors of rooms, fully paid; and then the word was spread. Steve threw a party the likes of which Townsville had not seen since colonial days. Drugs, women and alcohol were consumed like their was no tomorrow. (This was in the days when six grand was a fair stash!) For years afterwards, Steve was still boasting about that weekend from Heaven, that cost him... twenty bucks. :cat:

begin comment: ==>> there is something about a guy when he says, "F**K it!" and means it. <<==:end comment

 

[aslan]

begin comment: ==>> there is something about a guy when he says, "F**K it!" and means it. <<==:end comment

Begin Aslan's additional comment==>> yes, there is. good observation. <<==:end additional comment

 

[sagefr0g]

a lot's been said about this stuff

Begin Aslan's additional comment==>> yes, there is. good observation. <<==:end additional comment

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/A Free Man's Worship.htm
from
A Free Man's Worship
By Bertrand Russell
....
But there is in resignation a further good element: even real goods, when they are unattainable, ought not to be fretfully desired. To every man comes, sooner or later, the great renunciation. For the young, there is nothing unattainable; a good thing desired with the whole force of a passionate will, and yet impossible, is to them not credible. Yet, by death, by illness, by poverty, or by the voice of duty, we must learn, each one of us, that the world was not made for us, and that, however beautiful may be the things we crave, Fate may nevertheless forbid them. It is the part of courage, when misfortune comes, to bear without repining the ruin of our hopes, to turn away our thoughts from vain regrets. This degree of submission to Power is not only just and right: it is the very gate of wisdom.

But passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom; for not by renunciation alone can we build a temple for the worship of our own ideals. Haunting foreshadowings of the temple appear in the realm of imagination, in music, in architecture, in the untroubled kingdom of reason, and in the golden sunset magic of lyrics, where beauty shines and glows, remote from the touch of sorrow, remote from the fear of change, remote from the failures and disenchantments of the world of fact. In the contemplation of these things the vision of heaven will shape itself in our hearts, giving at once a touchstone to judge the world about us, and an inspiration by which to fashion to our needs whatever is not incapable of serving as a stone in the sacred temple.

Except for those rare spirits that are born without sin, there is a cavern of darkness to be traversed before that temple can be entered. The gate of the cavern is despair, and its floor is paved with the gravestones of abandoned hopes. There Self must die; there the eagerness, the greed of untamed desire must be slain, for only so can the soul be freed from the empire of Fate. But out of the cavern the Gate of Renunciation leads again to the daylight of wisdom, by whose radiance a new insight, a new joy, a new tenderness, shine forth to gladden the pilgrim's heart.
.....

 

[sagefr0g]

more Russell stuff...

...
Why water down advantage play? Do you somehow think it is to your advantage to reduce your advantage? It sounds contradictory on the face of it to me.
...

i know i'm dragging up an old post but i was reading some more of Bertrand Russell's stuff and it made me think of this post and it's got to do with my interest in the fuzzy counting and fuzzy betting stuff.

but certainly it's not any goal to water down or reduce an advantage. it's more an idea of a kind of trade off between maybe watered down advantage and the effort one must put forth for precision and accuracy with respect to counting.
i'm not sure if i'm right but how i think of it is, that ok, one can count cards with precision and accuracy (albeit probably not perfectly, perhaps even as imperfectly as 13% error rate if my quantitative analysis professor had a clue) but at any rate there's gonna be some error rate involved. additionally to do with this counting stuff is another question of precision and accuracy, that being the target wins of normal hands, successful double downs, snappers and insurance bets, which gives you some positive EV probability, your really goal or target. as far as accuracy of hitting that EV you've got the concomitant standard deviation tagging along. so granted you can achieve a precise, accurate EV. the results desired however, perhaps not so precise or accurate as ROR stands in evidence and testimony to that fact.
now come i with this fuzzy count stuff, through which i claim a qualitative perception of the advantage. the count orthodox is precise and accurate with respect to the target goal results within the limits of probability which lends a degree of vagueness to the process. the fuzzy count is simply vague with respect to the advantage and results.

so i find Russell's ideas on vagueness of interest, not from the perspective that the fuzzy count would be superior (it would in fact be insuperior) to orthodox counting, only that it could in Russell's sense of vagueness have some redeeming qualities.
now here is Russell on the subject of vagueness:
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/vagueness/
the part most interesting in my opinion being abstracted below:

...It would be a great mistake to suppose that vague knowledge must be false. On the contrary, a vague belief has a much better chance of being true than a precise one, because there are more possible facts that would verify it. If I believe that so-and-so is tall, I am more likely to be right than if I believe that his heigh is between 6 ft. 2 in. and 6 ft. 3 in. In regard to beliefs and propositions, though not in regard to single words, we can distinguish between accuracy and precision. A belief is precise when only one fact would verify it; it is accurate when it is both precise and true. Precision diminishes the likelihood of truth, but often increases the pragmatic value of a belief if it is true --- for example, in the case of the water that contained the typhoid bacilli. Science is perpetually trying to substitute more precise beliefs for vague ones; this makes it harder for a scientific proposition to be true than for the vague beliefs of uneducated persons to be true, but it makes scientific truth better worth having if it can be obtained....

 

[aslan]

...so i find Russell's ideas on vagueness of interest, not from the perspective that the fuzzy count would be superior (it would in fact be insuperior) to orthodox counting...

Sage, wake up, you almost said...inferior...fuzzy count is...gulp...inferior! But, alas, 'tis in the final analysis but...insuperior. which sounds pretty great when all is said and dun if me ears are worthy of trust methinks.

...It would be a great mistake to suppose that vague knowledge must be false. On the contrary, a vague belief has a much better chance of being true than a precise one, because there are more possible facts that would verify it. If I believe that so-and-so is tall, I am more likely to be right than if I believe that his heigh is between 6 ft. 2 in. and 6 ft. 3 in. In regard to beliefs and propositions, though not in regard to single words, we can distinguish between accuracy and precision. A belief is precise when only one fact would verify it; it is accurate when it is both precise and true. Precision diminishes the likelihood of truth, but often increases the pragmatic value of a belief if it is true --- for example, in the case of the water that contained the typhoid bacilli. Science is perpetually trying to substitute more precise beliefs for vague ones; this makes it harder for a scientific proposition to be true than for the vague beliefs of uneducated persons to be true, but it makes scientific truth better worth having if it can be obtained....

Precisely. Perfect counting is sort of vague to begin with. Fact is, this whole probability bag is sort of vague when you get right down to it. I mean, it approaches certinty, but it never quite gits there. Know wad I mean? You mite call fuzzified thinkin sumthin like "vague on top of vague" and therfur all tha more akcurate. Vague on vague, now thet's sumthin I ken reely git my teeth inta. Vegg on vegg. Thet's tha tiket! An sumone who is, ya kin cal him a vegan cuz of he beleves in veganry. Me, I'm a meat man myself. Meat an pataytas. Hope I made maiself vegg cuz I wunt a bedder chanse of bein tru as thet ther Rustler man up ther sed.

Vaguity?? Vagooity? Veggness? Vegas? Thas it. Vegas. Veganas? Vegas. in spanesh thas las Vegas. Thas tha tikit! Las Vegas. Can't nobody say nuthin bad about thet. Las Vegas is the anser I've bin lookin for fur tha longist time. Fuz city. Wear all yur dreems cum tru! I'm a goin ther rite away. Las Vegas or bust!

 

[sagefr0g]

Sage, wake up, you almost said...inferior...fuzzy count is...gulp...inferior! But, alas, 'tis in the final analysis but...insuperior. which sounds pretty great when all is said and dun if me ears are worthy of trust methinks.



Precisely. Perfect counting is sort of vague to begin with. Fact is, this whole probability bag is sort of vague when you get right down to it. I mean, it approaches certinty, but it never quite gits there. Know wad I mean? You mite call fuzzified thinkin sumthin like "vague on top of vague" and therfur all tha more akcurate. Vague on vague, now thet's sumthin I ken reely git my teeth inta. Vegg on vegg. Thet's tha tiket! An sumone who is, ya kin cal him a vegan cuz of he beleves in veganry. Me, I'm a meat man myself. Meat an pataytas. Hope I made maiself vegg cuz I wunt a bedder chanse of bein tru as thet ther Rustler man up ther sed.

Vaguity?? Vagooity? Veggness? Vegas? Thas it. Vegas. Veganas? Vegas. in spanesh thas las Vegas. Thas tha tikit! Las Vegas. Can't nobody say nuthin bad about thet. Las Vegas is the anser I've bin lookin for fur tha longist time. Fuz city. Wear all yur dreems cum tru! I'm a goin ther rite away. Las Vegas or bust!

aes, yhat's that wy'm mawking tbout. aust jike l ian cnderstand uou!:whip:

 

[aslan]

aes, yhat's that wy'm mawking tbout. aust jike l ian cnderstand uou!:whip:

Well I'm certainly glad you understand what I'm talking about. It makes perfect sense to me. Now that you can understand me, I guess we're in perfect agreement. If I make it any more precise, it would lack the vagueness necessary to give it a better chance of being true. We can't have that, now, can we? In fact it is so vague that it absolutely has the best of all chances of being true. The heck with being precise at the expense of accuracy, when vagueness has been waiting there all along to lead us to perfect truth!

PS--I like this Russell guy. Too bad he's dead. He could be a real asset to the Obama team, and explain to the American people how they plan for us to borrow our way out of debt. I can't wait to get started. Spending borrowed money to get us out of debt and on our feet again is a real stroke of a eh er a... a real stroke. And who knows, if the country survives this stroke, maybe we can give it another, until it finally recovers it's full health and robustness. It sure beats the ignorance of the old days when they used to bleed patients to health. Ha Now we have the real answer. Stun the economy into health. That's right. Give it a stroke, push it flat on its back and dump it on a hospital bed where it can rest and get better. They say, things sometimes have to get worse before they can get better. With this new policy, we are assured that things will get worse. God bless America for its caring and compassionate elected officials.

I hope this did not get too far off the track of the topic, luck. I did try to tie it into that Russell fellow.

 

[sagefr0g]

Well I'm certainly glad you understand what I'm talking about. It makes perfect sense to me. Now that you can understand me, I guess we're in perfect agreement. If I make it any more precise, it would lack the vagueness necessary to give it a better chance of being true. We can't have that, now, can we? In fact it is so vague that it absolutely has the best of all chances of being true. The heck with being precise at the expense of accuracy, when vagueness has been waiting there all along to lead us to perfect truth!

well actually, i just meant i could understand what you was saying even though your grammar and spielling was a wee bit vague.

PS--I like this Russell guy. Too bad he's dead. He could be a real asset to the Obama team, and explain to the American people how they plan for us to borrow our way out of debt. I can't wait to get started. Spending borrowed money to get us out of debt and on our feet again is a real stroke of a eh er a... a real stroke. And who knows, if the country survives this stroke, maybe we can give it another, until it finally recovers it's full health and robustness. It sure beats the ignorance of the old days when they used to bleed patients to health. Ha Now we have the real answer. Stun the economy into health. That's right. Give it a stroke, push it flat on its back and dump it on a hospital bed where it can rest and get better. They say, things sometimes have to get worse before they can get better. With this new policy, we are assured that things will get worse. God bless America for its caring and compassionate elected officials.

I hope this did not get too far off the track of the topic, luck. I did try to tie it into that Russell fellow.

so Russell was a borrower and spender type?

 

[aslan]

well actually, i just meant i could understand what you was saying even though your grammar and spielling was a wee bit vague.

so Russell was a borrower and spender type?

Indeed though [Bertrand] Russell was often characterized as the patron saint of rationality, he agreed with Hume, who said that reason ought to be subordinate to ethical considerations. ...He believed religion and the religious outlook (he considered communism and other systematic to be forms of religion) serve to impede knowledge, foster fear and dependency, and are responsible for much of the war, oppression, and misery that have beset the world. Wikipedia

Jane Russell was a Hollywood movie star.

Rosalind Russell was a Hollywood and Broadway star.

Jack Russell was the first English terrierist.

 

[sagefr0g]

Indeed though [Bertrand] Russell was often characterized as the patron saint of rationality, he agreed with Hume, who said that reason ought to be subordinate to ethical considerations. ...He believed religion and the religious outlook (he considered communism and other systematic to be forms of religion) serve to impede knowledge, foster fear and dependency, and are responsible for much of the war, oppression, and misery that have beset the world. Wikipedia

Jane Russell was a Hollywood movie star.

Rosalind Russell was a Hollywood and Broadway star.

Jack Russell was the first English terrierist.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=118118&postcount=110

 

[sagefr0g]

back to voodoo

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=118139&postcount=116

Quote:
Originally Posted by sagefr0g View Post
i don't know either. i'd be surprised though if he had the opportunity that he would turn out to be a spokesman for borrowing and spending our way out of our economic problems. from your post over in voodoo, i had the impression that you might have had evidence supporting that he would have been like minded and even a spokesman for such tactics.
i guess you mean cause you think he was pragmatic? but perhaps not all pragmatic minded folks would agree with the tactics in question, no?

No, I meant that the way he could argue for vague being more likely to be true, and precise being more likely to be in error, he would be the perfect man to argue that Obama's spending plan with borrowed money could get us out of the mess we're in. I was taking liberties with his talk about vagueness. I understand how he meant it, but it could easily be misconstrued that he was arguing a preference for vagueness over precision and accuracy. He was just pointing out the pitfalls in trying to be more precise than you are capable of, not that vagueness was preferable by any stretch of the imagination. At least that's what I got out of it. It was one of those purely philosphical discussions, not especially a pragmatist's manual for everyday use. It's hard to see my tongue in cheek and sarcasm, I know, in written words. The truth is, I meant just the opposite of the way you took it. A thousand pardons, my liege!

lmao, ok, no let me beg your pardon. lmao if you'd of been more vague maybe i'd of precisely understood what you meant.:laugh:

but yes about precision being all great and everything, yes, yes! lol.
vagueness not preferable to precision, yes.
but let's not overlook his argument for a certain degree of virtue for vagueness, either.

edit: and i think your missing part of his point, the very point that i find so difficult to articulate. the point being how a more vague perception can under certain circumstances have a better chance of catching the validity of a matter than a precise perception that is not over stepping it's bounds of precision but is simply living with in certain limits of accuracy by it's very nature.

 

[aslan]

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=118139&postcount=116
edit: and i think your missing part of his point, the very point that i find so difficult to articulate. the point being how a more vague perception can under certain circumstances have a better chance of catching the validity of a matter than a precise perception that is not over stepping it's bounds of precision but is simply living with in certain limits of accuracy by it's very nature.

I was more than vaguely aware of that under certain circumstances never less that vaguely defined. Wishing a more precise perception of those circumstances I decided to shelve the whole idea until relevant data could be brought to bear on what was otherwise in my opinion a vacuous speculation.

 

[sagefr0g]

I was more than vaguely aware of that under certain circumstances never less that vaguely defined. Wishing a more precise perception of those circumstances I decided to shelve the whole idea until relevant data could be brought to bear on what was otherwise in my opinion a vacuous speculation.

vacuous speculation? how can that be so, you state that you are more than vaguely aware. unless you mean that you don't understand the concept, that makes the concept a contingent of your knowledge. now you can make the argument yes but, this and that circumstance is required but that wouldn't be the point. the point being if the concept is a contingent of knowledge then it can have potential for pragmatic value.

you of course can shelve the whole idea until relevant data if you wish, but Russell did supply a mathematical example. i guess you realize that Russell was a fairly competent mathematician. and i know that you'll agree that as far as advantage stuff, mathematics has some relevance.

Russell in his writing on vagueness gave only one mathematical example but i should think it a simple matter to think of loads of others. perhaps he wrote more about the concept in The Principles of Mathematics or perhaps in his writings on cognition.
here is the statement about vagueness, precision and the example:
".... a vague belief has a much better chance of being true than a precise one, because there are more possible facts that would verify it. If I believe that so-and-so is tall, I am more likely to be right than if I believe that his height is between 6 ft. 2 in. and 6 ft. 3 in."

probably my point seems petty, it's not meant that way. it's just that having found Russell's writing on the subject of vagueness that it 'rings bells' with me over the matter of the idea of fuzzy counting for which i haven't been able to articulate. some obscure archaic artifact that points towards confidence, i dunno.

 

[aslan]

vacuous speculation? how can that be so, you state that you are more than vaguely aware. unless you mean that you don't understand the concept, that makes the concept a contingent of your knowledge. now you can make the argument yes but, this and that circumstance is required but that wouldn't be the point. the point being if the concept is a contingent of knowledge then it can have potential for pragmatic value.

you of course can shelve the whole idea until relevant data if you wish, but Russell did supply a mathematical example. i guess you realize that Russell was a fairly competent mathematician. and i know that you'll agree that as far as advantage stuff, mathematics has some relevance.

Russell in his writing on vagueness gave only one mathematical example but i should think it a simple matter to think of loads of others. perhaps he wrote more about the concept in The Principles of Mathematics or perhaps in his writings on cognition.
here is the statement about vagueness, precision and the example:
".... a vague belief has a much better chance of being true than a precise one, because there are more possible facts that would verify it. If I believe that so-and-so is tall, I am more likely to be right than if I believe that his height is between 6 ft. 2 in. and 6 ft. 3 in."

probably my point seems petty, it's not meant that way. it's just that having found Russell's writing on the subject of vagueness that it 'rings bells' with me over the matter of the idea of fuzzy counting for which i haven't been able to articulate. some obscure archaic artifact that points towards confidence, i dunno.

You will remember perhaps when I described my use of fuzzy logic when I first began counting a couple of years ago. Yes, I am guilty of fuzzy logic, but I don't use it as a primary strategy, but as a backup when I lose track of the running count. I think we've discussed this before, but anyway, here it is again, in a maybe more fuzzy logic manner. My fuzzy logic statement might be expressed as follows:

If you are sure the COUNT is between NUMBER and NUMBER+n inclusively, then COUNT equals NUMBER.

This fuzzy logic will ensure that you do not prematurely begin raising your bet by mistakenly believing the count is higher than by up to +n of what it really is.

Thus, if you forget the count, but you are sure it is either -12 or -13, then you would set the count to -13, or NUMBER. If you forget the count, but you are sure that it is -12, -13, -14, or -15, then you would set the count to -12 or NUMBER. Before, when explaining this, I expressed it in accounting terms, that is, I said I chose the more conservative position, which was the lower of the numbers in question. But either way, there is no doubt that it is fuzzy logic.

In employing this fuzzy logic strategem, you must decide how far you will let the certainty of the count to slide before you wong out. In general, most confusion exists when there is a 1 unit error or a 10 unit error, because it is easy to drop a single number, or to become confused between, say, -33 and -23, since the last digits are the same. If the confusion is between -33 and -23, it's time to wong out. However, if you become confused whether the correct count is -12 or -13, you simply set the count to -13.

When you reach -4 in six deck (I'm talking KO), you would begin raising your bet according to your predetermined bet progression. For 6-deck I use -4/2units, -3/2units, -2/3units, -1/4units, 0/5units, +1/6units, +2/8units, +3/9units, +4/10units.

If, say, you messed up and may have an error of 1, then your adjusted count might be -5 when you reached a true KO count of -4. Of course, there is a 50/50 chance that you are right on target, and your Fuzzy Count is equal to the True KO Count. The example below illustrates what would happen if you were off the True KO Count (not to be mistaken for True Count) by 1:

True KO............Fuzzy
Count....Bet..... Count....Bet
-5..........1.........-6.........1
-4..........2.........-5.........1
-3..........2.........-4.........2
-2..........3.........-3.........2
-1..........4.........-2.........3
0...........5.........-1.........4
+1.........6..........0.........5
+2.........8........+1.........6
+3.........9........+2.........8
+4........10.......+3.........9
+5........10.......+4........10

Employing fuzzy logic counting, you will lose a fraction of your advantage, but you will not waste an entire shoe where you stood to make money. I presented this type of scenario when I first started counting and everyone jumped down my throat for not being a perfect counter. They would raise questions like how do you know you are not more than one number off. My only answer is, how do they know their count is perfect. When I forget the count by one, oftentimes I know it is by one. Sometimes, I know it is by 2 or 3. Whatever it is, if I am certain what the range is within which there is error, I can make an adjustment by resetting my running count. All it amounts to is the effect of having a card or a few cards less favorable penetration.

 

[sagefr0g]

You will remember perhaps when I described my use of fuzzy logic when I first began counting a couple of years ago. Yes, I am guilty of fuzzy logic, but I don't use it as a primary strategy, but as a backup when I lose track of the running count. ....

interesting, we have opposite philosophies.
i screw around first and clean up my act if things don't go well, and you keep your act clean but if you screw up you try to salvage the situation with a fuzzy approach.
i'll read the rest of your post tomorrow, now it's me not feeling so good. lol

 

[aslan]

interesting, we have opposite philosophies.
i screw around first and clean up my act if things don't go well, and you keep your act clean but if you screw up you try to salvage the situation with a fuzzy approach.
i'll read the rest of your post tomorrow, now it's me not feeling so good. lol

Sorry you're feeling a little too green. Take care of yourself Mr. Fr0g.

 

[Katweezel]

Variance

Here is Bootlegger's definition of variance:

Variance. "This can be determined by subtracting the expected value from each possible outcome in a game or hand, squaring the differences and multiplying each square by its probability of occurring and then summing the total of the product."
Sage, In your recent, excellent Synopsis on Luck, you failed to mention the dreaded word, variance. Congratulations.