The Straw That Broke the Camels Back
- Thread starter Midwest Player
- Start date
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
That is not the problem. The problem is that he was given and continues to be given a platform for this alternative reality and mathematics and probably worst of all...."protected". And by a legitimate blackjack expert...someone who knows the math and knew this was twilight zone material. That has always been the troubling part to me.BoSox said:
If players, real players that play at tables and not on the computer screen had been allowed to legitimately challenge, it would have all worked out at the time. A sort of self policing of the community, debunking the voodoo. And nobody's 'freedom of speech' would have been denied. He could have continued his claims and people could have challenged the claims and the alternative math behind them. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Last edited:
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
I was trilled when Don began calling out the BS. And it's not about putting anyone down or trying to belittle anyone. It's just about the math and BJ facts and reality (not alternative reality). And no offense to Don, but many of the arguments that he made and was allowed to make were the same arguments that I attempted to make 4 years ago and was shut down. Yeah, I was probably a little harsh, born out of frustration, but whatever.johndoe said:
I am certainly not trying to put myself on Don's level. I am not even much of a math guy. I am very content to use the math of Don and others. But the fact that someone like me, who is not what I call 'a math guy' could challenge the math of these impossible claims, tells you just where we were at the time....the twilight zone!
We were definitely in the twilight zone alright, and a lot has happened in the last four years. I believe Don is now looked upon by Three with respect for what he has done for the game's history and how Don is well respected by others. Although you really had to be paying close attention to notice as some changes are often very subtle by nature. At the very least there is now no longer a second stringer, it is an all-out challenge "sort of like a coup d'etat" on who will take the snaps behind center on Sundays. The funny part is, is that Don just considers himself just one of the guys, which is how we all treat him.KewlJ said:
Last edited:
I see the problem. When I say tame variance everyone assumes I mean reduce variance. That is not what I mean by taming variance. Variance is a stat that is blind to the direction of the cause of the variance form the mean. By taming variance I mean focusing on the major contributors to variance and doing what you can to increase the positive mean differences and lessening the negative mean differences to get a higher ratio of positive difference variance to negative difference variance for the biggest contributors to variance. This tames variance to be your friend more than you enemy so you make money much more consistently over time. Increasing accuracy of decisions adds EV which then can be spent on your biggest bets to wait for a higher TC for doubles and splits if gain is weak or there is little EV gain at the index, and a slightly lower TC for surrender especially defensive splits, and taking insurance early on very strong hands and at the index or higher for weak hands. So you spend some of the EV gain from increased accuracy to shift the variance for these plays to have a higher percentage of positive differences from the mean than negative differences with your bigger bets out. The combination of more accurate decisions and shifting the composition of the contributors to variance tames variance. It doesn't reduce variance much but it tames variance to cause much more certain BR growth. CE wouldn't show this change because it is also blind to the composition of variance. But you see it in your results. Fewer and less severe losing sessions and more frequent winning sessions. The result is more certain BR growth with out much change in EV or variance.
I couldn't use my systems if I didn't sim them. It is you guys that said they have never been simmed. I was contacted by Doqhand so he could sim my ideas because he believed you guys. I sent him a bunch of data and he knew I gad been simming and researching what I do for years. I think he felt silly for believing the ones that have no way of knowing rather than the one that knows. I couldn't use anything I talk about without being able to sim. The sim just can't sim exactly what I do because it is a bit fluid in a casino. I fine tune things beyond what a sim can do when playing in a casino. But I can sim slightly worse than I play. It is just a slight underestimate. I earn more than enough to pay for the lifestyle I enjoy. Why get greedy and kill the golden goose. I never stop improving things.johndoe said:
Midwest Player
Well-Known Member
And just exactly what post would that be? Sounds like a cheap shot to me.BoSox said:
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
T3/Dummy should not be the person to sim anything. In science, they use blind and double blind experiments to avoid bias and any possibility to skew results towards a specific desired result. That same issue can and will occur with simulations. The person setting up the parameters of the simulation may...maybe even unintentionally set it up in a biased manner. So someone completely independent would need to run any sim on this subject matter.johndoe said:
Now since we are deep into this discussion, I will state an issue I have had from day 1 in this situation. That is the manner in which "dummy" speaks or in this case writes. And there are good examples right here in this thread. Who writes (or speaks) like that?
I am not the smartest fellow, but I am not stupid either. I read through many of his posts and say what the F is he talking about?Maybe he communicates in that manner, I don't know because I don't know him, but I sort of got the feeling very early on, much of that is a technique that I refer to as "muddying the waters". You just talk out your ass, confusing many, to cover up deficiencies.
Right, his use of complicated language is intentional, in order to obfuscate the fact that there is no validity to his claims whatsoever. That this has been going on for so many years is baffling.
But ultimately, as they say, "that which can be claimed without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence."
But ultimately, as they say, "that which can be claimed without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence."
We do not know what game was even used for the simulation itself.KewlJ said:
I actually believe the only one person who can understand what he has to say is himself.KewlJ said:Now since we are deep into this discussion, I will state an issue I have had from day 1 in this situation. That is the manner in which "dummy" speaks or in this case writes. And there are good examples right here in this thread. Who writes (or speaks) like that?
Maybe he communicates in that manner, I don't know because I don't know him, but I sort of got the feeling very early on, much of that is a technique that I refer to as "muddying the waters". You just talk out your ass, confusing many, to cover up deficiencies.
One of the hardest parts for me to believe is when I hear a statement that goes something like this:
All of my barrings are for lifetime wins that are much greater than others who are barred for lifetime wins at the same exact casinos. I can not remember where I recently heard that one but it is mild compared to some of the other whoppers that he is known for.
All of my barrings are for lifetime wins that are much greater than others who are barred for lifetime wins at the same exact casinos. I can not remember where I recently heard that one but it is mild compared to some of the other whoppers that he is known for.
Last edited: