|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
24th September 2009, 03:12 PM | #121 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
|
|
24th September 2009, 03:36 PM | #122 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
Actually it does have to do with that, although variations in betting are more important. When you count you adjust your playing strategy a bit depending on the count.
Southwind's definition of "cheating" is "anything which gives the edge to the player". I'm not making that up, that really is what he means by it. |
24th September 2009, 04:08 PM | #123 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
|
Yeah, I sorta figured that out from his posts.
I also noticed that he didn't respond to the central argumetn of my post: that card counting isn't cheating because it isn't based of information that was obtained by breaking the rules of the game. Anyone can see what the face-up cards are. Card counting is just a way of making an educated guess as to what the face-down cards are based of what the face-up cards are and what the face-up cards have been in other games. The educated guess then informs one's betting decisions, just like the cards in the river inform one's betting decisions in hold-'em poker. If one knew what the face-down cards or the cards still in the deck were, one would be cheating, because, according to the rules of the game, on is not supposed to have that knowledge. I don't understand why Southwind17 is failing to make this distinction. |
24th September 2009, 10:57 PM | #124 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
24th September 2009, 11:54 PM | #125 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
I agree. Always have done.
I don't play draw poker. But regardless, what does that question have to do with card counting? Go ahead - split hairs if you will. For all intents and purposes of casino operating, yes, that's right. "The rules of the game" - here we go. I don't recall, when I first learned to play blackjack, or when I check out a casino's application of the variables to the basic rules of blackjack, an exhaustive list of "cheats". In fact, I don't recall any information on "cheats". You have a blackjack book, do you, containing a rules section that says:
"Informs one's betting decisions". Please make up your mind. Before you claimed: And as for: So, assuming, for argument's sake, a blackjack game in which, by card counting, the point count (10s vs. non-10s) has reached, say, +20, i.e. the deck is "rich" in 10s, you're claiming that the probability of receiving a 10 on the next hand is exactly the same as it was when receiving the first hand after the shuffle? Mmm ... interesting take on probability theory. Ah ... "the rules of the game", again. ... and again. Presumably this is Rule 7: 7. Thou shalt not look at other players' face-down cards or thumb through the deck cards, because thou is forbaden from beholding such knowledge and, pursuant to Rule 15, shall be struck down with fire from hell if thou is caught trying. If your beef is that your definition of cheating differs from mine let's just agree to disagree (after all, I did clearly acknowledge that card counting being classed as cheating is arguable in my very first post in this thread). My point is that, for all intents and purposes to running a casino floor, it's looked upon as cheating, because it is contra to the basic tenet of operating a casino for profit. Presumably the casinos that you, clearly, frequent permit blackjack players to manually record the exposed cards during a game, like they do for roulette? |
25th September 2009, 07:28 AM | #126 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
So when you contradict someone and declare "card counting has nothing to do with hold 'em/fold 'em" and I tell you you're wrong, which you are, that's "splitting hairs". OK.
Quote:
But that's "splitting hairs" again, I suppose? |
25th September 2009, 07:57 AM | #127 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,781
|
A quick question for you guys- Don't the casinos use a 5 deck shoe to impede card counting? Is unaided counting still effective under these conditions?
|
25th September 2009, 08:51 AM | #128 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
|
Except that you have implied that strategies that have a positive expectation for the gambler are cheating.
You betting decisions in any card game are informed by what you think the other players' hands are. In casino blackjack, this is just easier to figure out because, the previous hands are usually not returned to the deck immediately nor is the deck shuffled after every hand. So why is something that is allowed is every other card game forbidden is blackjack? "Bad for the profit margin"≠"Cheating". Again, you are only supposed to have certain knowledge of the face-up cards. How is making an inference as what the face-down cards might be cheating? The two comments say the same thing: card counting "informs one's betting decisions" by "giv[ing one] a better idea of when to [when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em]". Having a strategy for "when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em" is not cheating; it's called good gambling. As sol invictus pointed out, you are completely misinterpreting what I said. It is the dealing of the cards (i.e., normal game-play) that changes the probability of what cards will be dealt. Card counting is just a way of calculating that probability using information that is available to all players, according to the rules of the game. Yeah, do you know what they are? Do you actually know how to play blackjack? My "beef" is that you are using a definition of "cheating" that no-one else is the world uses and then treating people like they are stupid to disagree with you. Card counting is bad for the casino's profit margin, which is not the same thing as cheating. First, I don't frequent casino. Second, recording the face-up cards only helps if the shoe has not been reshuffled. In other words, if one play enough games, the probability of certain hands being dealt becomes statistically independent. |
25th September 2009, 10:49 AM | #129 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
Why am I not surprised?
Neat dodge. But: "recording the face-up cards only helps if the shoe has not been reshuffled". So around, say, 25-30% of the time then (I assume you're referring to blackjack)? Is that statistically insignificant?! And: "if one play enough games, the probability of certain hands being dealt becomes statistically independent." You mean the more the shoe is depleted the less one can deduce about the statistical probablilty of future hands? |
25th September 2009, 10:56 AM | #130 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
8-deck, sometimes. And yes, that's exactly why casinos use multiple decks. Of course, re-shuffling after typically 25% depletion compounds the counter-measure. Essentially, card counting on an 8-card deck is pointless, unless you have exceptional mental stamina, the attention span of a gold fish and don't intend to become wealthly playing blackjack (or having fun)! BTW - a mechanical counting device would hardly help matters.
|
25th September 2009, 11:03 AM | #131 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
25th September 2009, 11:40 AM | #132 |
ancillary character
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
|
Five deck games are rare, but most of my playing has been against six decks, and I've even played with an edge against eight decks.
Shoe games tend to have more liberal rules, such as double down on any two cards, double after split, and late surrender. Also, blackjack pays the traditional 3:2 in a shoe game as opposed to the relatively new 6:5 payoff in single-deck games. Shoe games are also dealt face-up, making them easier to count. The three main keys to whether a shoe game is playable are penetration, allowed betting spread, and the strategy of "Wonging". Penetration refers to the placement of the cut card (a blank, colored card) in the pack by the dealer after the shuffle and cut. When the cut card comes out of the shoe, it's an indication to the dealer to shuffle before the next round. Dealers tend to place the cut card far back in the pack to minimize shuffling, but the casinos know that the farther back the cut card is placed, the more effective card counting is. Because shuffling wastes time and makes no money for the casino, they have to strike a compromise in where they tell their dealers to place the cut card. If they're worried about card counters then their games will have poor penetration, but if they aren't, and they want to maximize rounds to maximize profits, they'll allow good penetration. Allowed betting spread is critical to shoe games if you intend to sit for long sessions at one table. If the casino won't let you vary your bet by a large amount between successive hands, you may not be able to achieve an edge. However, many casinos believe that their shoe games are immune to card counting and concern themselves with betting spreads only in their single- and double-deck games. Finally, "Wonging" is a technique popularized by Stanford WongWP (I met him once) for use in shoe games. If you're free to hop from one table to another and to watch games in progress without playing, you don't even need to use a betting spread. You can jump into shoe games with a standard bet whenever the count is good. This is a great technique for large blackjack pits where there are empty seats at many of the tables. Sorry. It was "a quick question", but this didn't turn out to be a quick answer! |
25th September 2009, 11:59 AM | #133 |
ancillary character
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
|
|
25th September 2009, 12:36 PM | #134 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
25th September 2009, 01:03 PM | #135 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
|
That's pretty much par for the course for Southwind17. After, s/he once claimed that Zeno's paradox disproved the existence of infinity.
|
25th September 2009, 02:59 PM | #136 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,781
|
|
25th September 2009, 11:54 PM | #137 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 315
|
Not that this is directly related to your question on the above quoted research but as it deals with coin flipping probabilities.. I thought I'd share it.
"At the start of each semester, Deborah Nolan teaches her elementary statistics students a basic, bilateral lesson in life: that it's really hard to look accidental on purpose; and, on the flip-side of the same coin, that randomness can look suspiciously rigged. And what better way to prove her point than by flipping coins. Nolan divides her class of 65 or so students into two groups. The members of one group are told to take a coin and flip it 100 times; recording the results of each toss on a piece of paper. The other students are told to imagine tossing the coin 100 times and to write down what they think the outcome would be. After signing their work with a mark known only to themselves, the students are told to place the spreadsheets of heads and tails face-down on Nolan's desk. Nolan then leaves the room and the students begin writing and flipping. On returning, Nolan glances over the strings of 100 Hs & Ts and declares each to be either real tossups or fakes. Nolan is nearly always right and the students are surprised and assume she must have a spy in the room. As it happens, true happenstance bears a distinctive stamp, and until you are familiar with it's pattern, you are likely to think it is messier, more haphazard, than it is. In a real tossing of a coin you will find stretches of monotony, strings of 5 and 7 head or tails. Where as people will tend to apply the 50/50 rule over a short period of time, and the over all number of switchbacks is too high, revealing that people have a skewed sense of probabilities. " (The Canon by Angier. (Probabilities 47p) |
26th September 2009, 12:55 AM | #138 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
26th September 2009, 01:04 AM | #139 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
First, it's usually 10-value cards that are counted (face cards and tens).
Second, yes, a shoe is certainly countable, but by virtue of multiple packs the likelihood of a favourable position reduces, particluarly when only part of the combined decks is essentially used. Towlie claims above to have had an edge over the house with an 8-deck shoe. I'd be interested to learn exactly how much of an edge, and what it equated to in winnings, if anything (unfortunately, he seemingly overlooked context). |
26th September 2009, 05:36 AM | #140 |
ancillary character
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
|
|
26th September 2009, 06:52 AM | #141 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
Ah yes, self-embarrassment. Would that be the reason you've conveniently avoided enlightening us as to the details of your 8-deck edge, and how much you benefited from it, by any chance?!? Or are you expecting me to go research it myself? If so, where should I start such trivial pursuit, I wonder?
|
26th September 2009, 07:25 AM | #142 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
I see that the southern hot air is doing pretty much the same thing here that he does elsewhere -- specifically, he persists in playing pedantic semantic1 games instead of engaging in a genuine dialog about the subject matter.
1see definition 4 |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
26th September 2009, 07:53 AM | #143 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
Unfortunately, we can't all be master posters like you, "constantly engaging in a genuine dialog about the subject matter". But we can at least strive to be. Tell you what ... let's take this thread as a case study and see what we can learn from your "genuine dialog about the subject matter". Let's start by reviewing your first post:
Oh, that's a little disappointing. OK, let's see how you developed your "genuine dialog about the subject matter" by contrasting your first post with your last post: Oh, equally disappointing. Perhaps you're not the master poster you would like to have us all believe, and one has to wonder about your motive for joining this thread. The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to my mind! |
26th September 2009, 10:29 AM | #144 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
|
|
26th September 2009, 10:44 AM | #145 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
Jeez - you really know how to hurt a person mijo. I really can't think of anything more embarrasing than stating a position about something so esoteric as infinity and abstractions. What was I thinking?! Ouch!!! Please stop telling people, though, will you? Pwetty pwease?
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|