The TC Theorem is Still Denied by Some ...
- Thread starter Southpaw
- Start date
From the vantage point of the beginning of the shoe, then the average ending TC (the TC when there is one card left in the shoe) will be zero.
However, if when 4 decks remain, you have a TC of +12, this is new, more reliable information, and you now know that the average TC (i.e., if a sufficiently high number of trials were performed using a 4 deck slug with a TC of +12) when one card remains will be +12.
Spaw
However, if when 4 decks remain, you have a TC of +12, this is new, more reliable information, and you now know that the average TC (i.e., if a sufficiently high number of trials were performed using a 4 deck slug with a TC of +12) when one card remains will be +12.
Spaw
Again, the TC theorem is valid under the constraint, that the TC has a given value at a given time. The theorem projects the TC into the future - given the chosen initial values.
If you are born in March, and the Birthday theorem states that your birthday is in the same month as the month you're born every following year - You cannot simply argue that on average you have your birthday on every month. (March will be in balance with June, July, ...)
Because the Birthday theorem is only valid under the constraint, that you have a given birth date.
There is no such thing as balancing out an initial +12 TC with an initial -12 TC, because you only average over those shoes where the initial TC is +12!
You should update your knowledge on conditional expectation values.
If you are born in March, and the Birthday theorem states that your birthday is in the same month as the month you're born every following year - You cannot simply argue that on average you have your birthday on every month. (March will be in balance with June, July, ...)
Because the Birthday theorem is only valid under the constraint, that you have a given birth date.
There is no such thing as balancing out an initial +12 TC with an initial -12 TC, because you only average over those shoes where the initial TC is +12!
You should update your knowledge on conditional expectation values.
With "birthday" I meant the annual day you celebrate your birthday. Whatever that day is called in english ^^
If the TC is +12 at a given time (i.e. after 1 deck is dealt), at that time (i.e. without additional information about upcoming cards) the shoe is expected to end with +12 TC. That is the TC theorem. Note that the shoe is also expected to end with RC=0 - this is no contradiction!
If the TC is +12 at a given time (i.e. after 1 deck is dealt), at that time (i.e. without additional information about upcoming cards) the shoe is expected to end with +12 TC. That is the TC theorem. Note that the shoe is also expected to end with RC=0 - this is no contradiction!
Maybe I Can Help
:laugh:
Once you have a positive TC in a shoe
The TC on AVERAGE remains the same as the shoe is played
while the RC drops
The above has VARIANCE
How often have you played a shoe that remains the same TC for most of the shoe? The RC drops but as you calculate your TC, it's the same. This is the TC theorem in the real world.
:laugh:
Once you have a positive TC in a shoe
The TC on AVERAGE remains the same as the shoe is played
while the RC drops
The above has VARIANCE
How often have you played a shoe that remains the same TC for most of the shoe? The RC drops but as you calculate your TC, it's the same. This is the TC theorem in the real world.
I can't believe how patient you guys are being. Everytime I try to forgive this kind of ignorance I just find myself in another heated argument with them later trying to explain something else basic and obvious. If we were professional plumbers and somone was like
"wait, what? fluids be flowing through these pipes? Prove it!"
Would we react the same way? Its ok that they don't know but they should change their tone and go read a few books. Not just keep being stubborn until they start giving out cartesian defences. "Ok so 'fluids' maybe do flow through pipes, but does any of this exist? Maybe we're in the matrix right now! Think about it.....
"wait, what? fluids be flowing through these pipes? Prove it!"
Would we react the same way? Its ok that they don't know but they should change their tone and go read a few books. Not just keep being stubborn until they start giving out cartesian defences. "Ok so 'fluids' maybe do flow through pipes, but does any of this exist? Maybe we're in the matrix right now! Think about it.....
And now psyduck is losing it. Psyduck, imagine a basket with 120 red apples, 120 green apples and 72 pears....
Was just gonna leave it at that but I wanna try 1 more time. At the beginning the first random fruit u grab and all future grabs CURRENTLY have a 120/312 120/312 and 72/312 chance of being a red green or pear respectively. When you pull a red one on first grab the next grabs and all future grabs chances change to 119/311 120/311 and 72/311 respectively. These numbers will chance again, but as of right now their expected probabilities are as stated.
(I can't believe I added to this abortion of thread. It seems so obv but its so hard to not try one more time to make it clear)
Was just gonna leave it at that but I wanna try 1 more time. At the beginning the first random fruit u grab and all future grabs CURRENTLY have a 120/312 120/312 and 72/312 chance of being a red green or pear respectively. When you pull a red one on first grab the next grabs and all future grabs chances change to 119/311 120/311 and 72/311 respectively. These numbers will chance again, but as of right now their expected probabilities are as stated.
(I can't believe I added to this abortion of thread. It seems so obv but its so hard to not try one more time to make it clear)
Yeah same here. I'm not going to get into the math because its already been well presented. I'll just say once more that this is the reason we can wong out of a deeply negative shoe and find a better shoe. There is no need to be concerned about the shoe coming back. On average it will end negative and we're just throwing money away if we stay. The guys that aren't getting this are only seeing the short term, not the long term picture here.
And the funny part is: on average there is no difference between short term and long term 
People always confuse expectation with long term or average over an infinite number of hands. Quite the opposite is true. Expectation is a property each and every hand has. The difference between short term and long term is purely variance, but the expectation of short term and long term are identical.
People always confuse expectation with long term or average over an infinite number of hands. Quite the opposite is true. Expectation is a property each and every hand has. The difference between short term and long term is purely variance, but the expectation of short term and long term are identical.
Theories to Apples
I like the apple analogy:
Let's say you have a barrel
in the barrel are 100 apples
60 are yellow
40 are red
On average every time you pick out 10 apples what would you expect?
4 red and 6 yellow
If you do this 10 times what would the average be?
4 red and 6 yellow
If you refill the barrel and do it a billion times, what would you expect on AVERAGE
4 red and 6 yellow
This is what the TC theorem is, replace apples with hi and low cards. It is what you would expect on AVERAGE.
Now the above would have variance, sometimes you will get 4 red apples, sometimes more and sometimes less. The average will be 4.
I like the apple analogy:
Let's say you have a barrel
in the barrel are 100 apples
60 are yellow
40 are red
On average every time you pick out 10 apples what would you expect?
4 red and 6 yellow
If you do this 10 times what would the average be?
4 red and 6 yellow
If you refill the barrel and do it a billion times, what would you expect on AVERAGE
4 red and 6 yellow
This is what the TC theorem is, replace apples with hi and low cards. It is what you would expect on AVERAGE.
Now the above would have variance, sometimes you will get 4 red apples, sometimes more and sometimes less. The average will be 4.
That is true for TC=0. But when TC=ANYTHING ELSE then the shoe will on average end at TC=ANYTHING ELSE from that point forward in the shoe. If TC changes, then from that point forward, on average, the shoe will end at the new TC.
As has been stated TC tells you what is to come. RC tells you what has happened.
As has been stated TC tells you what is to come. RC tells you what has happened.
Instead of being cynical about it, you could agree that once you have more information about cards being removed, you have better information about the average TC for the rest of the shoe.
Or you could chose to say "They will all end at zero!" If that is your choice you will only miss out on a few insights that are somewhat helpful.
Or you could chose to say "They will all end at zero!" If that is your choice you will only miss out on a few insights that are somewhat helpful.
Your arguing an irrelevant point. We all get what your saying. But if instead they used spanish decks and just burned cards face up until tc = 0 so that the deck is more similar to standard then would the expected tc for for all future points be 0 or would it still go back to +4 at some point just because that's what we started with? After each card comes out there is a more accurate description of thhe shoe than "a shoe that started out standard and had x cards removed" that's the entire point of counting!
And how often does a shoe have the same TC throughout the shoe? For all practical purposes I've seen it happen where the RC never ventures more than a few points from zero yielding a more or less constant TC (of zero) throughout, but that indeed is rare. More likely is the case where the TC fluctuates throughout the shoe. Therefore, projecting the TC foward through a few decks of unseen cards is a bad idea IMHO.
Let's take the case of a team all playing at the same table with each of the team members leaving the table at different times during the shoe. After one deck has been played the TC=2 and player 1 leaves. After 2 decks have been played the TC=3 and player 2 leaves. After 2 and one half decks have been played the TC=4 and player 3 leaves. After 3 decks have been played the TC=5 and player 4 leaves. After 4 decks have been played the TC drops to -1 and all the players who left the table return. On the next hand everyone has different bets out based on what the respective TCs were when each left the table, but all are overbetting because they based their bets on the projected TC when they left the table. They should have looked at player 5 who never left the table and put a minimum bet out.
Let's take the case of a team all playing at the same table with each of the team members leaving the table at different times during the shoe. After one deck has been played the TC=2 and player 1 leaves. After 2 decks have been played the TC=3 and player 2 leaves. After 2 and one half decks have been played the TC=4 and player 3 leaves. After 3 decks have been played the TC=5 and player 4 leaves. After 4 decks have been played the TC drops to -1 and all the players who left the table return. On the next hand everyone has different bets out based on what the respective TCs were when each left the table, but all are overbetting because they based their bets on the projected TC when they left the table. They should have looked at player 5 who never left the table and put a minimum bet out.