sagefr0g said:
big number for sure lol.
so but anyway about the big number of shuffles and even bigger numberof rounds and all and where a sim might do not nearly so many shuffles or rounds.
thing is at least there is the idea that there is balanced symmetry to the high and low cards in a deck of cards to begin with and then while any given shuffle may be unique in a whole lot of possible ways it's always just mixing up that symmetry and if it ever gets skewed there is always an equivalent but opposite skewedness possible on a one to one basis. so even though simulations are anectdotal (relatively speaking to the number of possible shuffles) it can be clearly shown that true count frequencies present a normal distribution for an impressive large number of rounds and shuffles.
and then it just seems logical to think or say that say if a shuffle is skewed one way one time that there is no reason to believe an equal and opposite skewed one won't show up sooner or later since it would seem reasonable that the probability of either one happening is equal and one's already happend so why not the other sort of thing.
so but it seems logical with respect to TC's frequencies and the probabilities of those frequencies presenting that the inhierent symmetry of high and low cards is going to have a guiding influence. to where the law of large numbers what ever that is, is going to play it's part. i guess it's almost as if the equivalent skewedness of what can happen for the symmetry can in an abstract sense be reduced to the idea of a coin flip. to where yep there is a potential for a lot of wierd skewdness to happen but as events happen over time the probability of that wierd skewdness becomes less and less likely. perhaps exponentially so? to where it would be hard to argue against the normal nature that simulations present.
and another thing that i guess would be part of the argument is how we learn basic strategy for instance. it's some number like around 550 plays or so that we typically memorize. so what ever the number it's like there is a limiting factor of how many right ways there are to play a given hand. then i guess if like your program can do is you take the composition state of where your at in the pack then there's a whole lot of more possibilities for the proper play.
but what ever it seems there is a limiting factor regarding playing strategy as well as the limiting factor of likely TC frequencies. that being the case i guess lends a sense of normalcy to what's going to happen even if there are so many potential ways a shuffle can happen. but at least maybe one could say that the large number of various possible shuffles opens up the possibility for a lot of luck.
just babbling on about all this cause it's interesting.
so but anyway about the big number of shuffles and even bigger numberof rounds and all and where a sim might do not nearly so many shuffles or rounds.
thing is at least there is the idea that there is balanced symmetry to the high and low cards in a deck of cards to begin with and then while any given shuffle may be unique in a whole lot of possible ways it's always just mixing up that symmetry and if it ever gets skewed there is always an equivalent but opposite skewedness possible on a one to one basis. so even though simulations are anectdotal (relatively speaking to the number of possible shuffles) it can be clearly shown that true count frequencies present a normal distribution for an impressive large number of rounds and shuffles.
and then it just seems logical to think or say that say if a shuffle is skewed one way one time that there is no reason to believe an equal and opposite skewed one won't show up sooner or later since it would seem reasonable that the probability of either one happening is equal and one's already happend so why not the other sort of thing.
so but it seems logical with respect to TC's frequencies and the probabilities of those frequencies presenting that the inhierent symmetry of high and low cards is going to have a guiding influence. to where the law of large numbers what ever that is, is going to play it's part. i guess it's almost as if the equivalent skewedness of what can happen for the symmetry can in an abstract sense be reduced to the idea of a coin flip. to where yep there is a potential for a lot of wierd skewdness to happen but as events happen over time the probability of that wierd skewdness becomes less and less likely. perhaps exponentially so? to where it would be hard to argue against the normal nature that simulations present.
and another thing that i guess would be part of the argument is how we learn basic strategy for instance. it's some number like around 550 plays or so that we typically memorize. so what ever the number it's like there is a limiting factor of how many right ways there are to play a given hand. then i guess if like your program can do is you take the composition state of where your at in the pack then there's a whole lot of more possibilities for the proper play.
but what ever it seems there is a limiting factor regarding playing strategy as well as the limiting factor of likely TC frequencies. that being the case i guess lends a sense of normalcy to what's going to happen even if there are so many potential ways a shuffle can happen. but at least maybe one could say that the large number of various possible shuffles opens up the possibility for a lot of luck.
just babbling on about all this cause it's interesting.
. An exact calculation is as long run as you can get but it is measuring only one situation/moment in time. I don't know how many exact calculation rounds would need to be simmed for WWII conditions in order to present a reasonable facsimile of actual expectations, given the possbilities. Maybe it's only relatively few or maybe it's a whole lot. Perhaps finding some sort of margin of error type parameter like they do in election polls would be the way to go. I'd have no idea how to do that.
