Comments by "EebstertheGreat" (@EebstertheGreat) on "Wendover Productions"
channel.
-
88
-
59
-
52
-
48
-
36
-
34
-
33
-
31
-
30
-
24
-
17
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@richdobbs6595 The centrifugal force due to uniform circular motion is mv²/r. The centripetal force due to gravity is GMm/r². These are equal when v² = GM/r. In other words, orbital speed is inversely proportional to the square root of the orbital radius.
Think about it this way. If you double your distance from the earth, gravity drops fourfold, but speed only drops by a factor of 1.4. So Thomas sort of has it backwards. It's not that gravity only changes "slightly," it changes tremendously. The reason Thomas probably had this wrong impression is that he was comparing LEO to the surface of the earth, which is just not a very large distance, so of course the difference in gravity isn't that large. But the difference in orbital speed also isn't that large (ignoring terrain and air resistance). When we compare orbits that have significantly different radii, like LEO and geosynchronous orbits, the gravitational force changes a lot, and that's why a lower speed is required.
Or think about it another way. If Thomas's claim were true, then we should expect to see higher satellites moving slower even in a uniform gravitational field. But that's backwards. Higher satellites would actually have to move faster than lower satellites if gravity were uniform, in order to keep v²/r constant.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@taoliu3949 You may have to go back and read the comments, because you have stalled for so long that you forgot what we were talking about. But I'll try to summarize.
I said that CSMs were easy to cheat with because they could be programmed to give more low rank cards than high rank cards. A CSM uses a buffer of ~40 cards, and by inserting low rank cards higher in the buffer more often, it can ensure that these cards will be dealt more often. (Note that despite the name, a CSM does not "continuously" shuffle cards. The shuffling action happens whenever new cards are put in the machine. And even though they are intended to randomize the cards, they do not do so very well, and in particular a newly added card has a nearly 0 probability of being put on top of the buffer.)
Now, you claimed that even if a CSM were programmed this way, that would not benefit the dealer. In fact, you said it would benefit the player! Your claim was that if more low rank cards were dealt out and fewer high rank cards, the odds would not get worse for the player. I pointed out that this would imply that card counters (playing at tables with normal shoes) should not reduce their bet when the count was low, and maybe even should increase it. This is simply false, and the math behind card counting is old and famous and easy to check.
But you just never engaged with me on that. You still assert that dealing out low rank cards is good for the player, but you refuse to look at the analogy to card-counting. Your hypothesis cannot explain why real card counters (who do win money) follow exactly the opposite strategy when playing with normal shoes.
4
-
@taoliu3949 "Read your very first 2 comments, you even mentioned CSMs which you purported are rigged."
Well let's quote some of my comments directly:
My second post: "They generally wouldn't do this, because it would be illegal and could be detected by looking at a history of payouts. And there are already much easier ways for a casino to cheat. But it looks bad from the player perspective."
My fourth post: "I do not think any casino is likely to cheat this way."
Yeah, I definitely claimed that CSMs are rigged.
"it is not possible to count cards with a CSM, end story, period."
Quote me the post where I ever suggested such a thing, that is NOT the very latest post where I explained how people actually HAVE profited by counting cards against CSMs.
"I have NEVER said when the count is low players are less more likely to win."
What you actually said was "Your suggestion of not allowing face cards to come out does NOT increase dealer odds," and "it would completely fuck the dealers strategy," and "The edge would tip towards the player," and "the lack of face cards means that players are a lot less likely to bust which means they have a much higher chance of winning." In other words, what you DID say was that low cards benefit the player and high cards benefit the dealer, which is the exact opposite of the mathematical truth at stake.
"I've done my bit of math, which you have not addressed, at all."
You've done a bit. Do you have any idea what sort of computational resources are required for this sort of analysis? Or how many decades dedicated gamblers have focused on this exact problem? Let's get back to my yes-or-no question. What is your answer? Sure, you could adjust your strategy or whatever, but suppose you adjust your strategy in the optimal way. After doing so, do you really think you have gained an advantage over the casino that stacked the deck against you?
I mean, this is really what it all comes down to. Do you trust your "little bit" of math or the calculations that the experts trust?
And have you worked out my analogy yet or not? I will entertain questions if not. But if you do understand, I would love to hear your response.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@taoliu3949 So by your first paragraph, are you saying that when the count goes very low, the player isn't at a disadvantage? Just to be clear, that is your assertion? Because I would love to see you pull out a source for that.
Card counting does not, in general, involve adjusting basic strategy. It involves adjusting your bet. When the count is low, you bet low (or even leave the table). When the count is high, you bet high. If the casino could ensure the count was always low, this would be to the disadvantage of the players. It blows my mind that you can deny this.
Yes, a deck with low cards means players who hit on 17 are less likely to bust. But unless the count is extremely low, hitting on hard 17 is still almost always a bad strategy. The house has an inherent edge in blackjack no matter what strategy you play with, even though the house is forced to play with the same strategy every hand. The only way to beat this is by adjusting your bet. There is no clever adjustment to basic strategy that can put the odds in your favor. If you disagree, give me a source, because this is pretty well-known stuff.
3
-
3