Comparing new and traditional ways of using information gathered

[Dummy]

I started this thread because it seems pretty much nobody understands the limitations of reducing everything to a number on a number-line versus taking the deck populations that populate the TC bin associated with that number and dividing that into related deck composition subsets.

First the traditional method:

You will find these two links very useful for visualizing what traditional counting can do. The first one looks at Hilo and gives a glimpse of how the range and frequency of deck compositions in a TC bin fall around the average.

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/showthread.php?707-Advantage-per-True-Count-using-Combinatorial-Analysis

If you look at the distribution of advantage around each true count average (Look at the second graph. The one in blue with the red dot to indicate the TC bin average for the conditions being investigated using a Combinatorial Analysis), you see the average is about one third of the way from the low advantage edge of the range. That tells you that you are looking at a right skewed graph. That is most of the deck compositions in this graph fall somewhat below the average and rarer deck compositions range much further above the average. This usually pulls the average or mean away from the median and mode for the graph. This is for a simple balanced ace reckoned level one count, Hilo.

The other interesting link compares the best traditional count for computer play against Hilo. It is useful for looking at the difference in distributions for the range of traditional ways of using information. Basically you are moving deck compositions from one TC bin to another TC bin based on the 2, 3, 6 and 7 being counted as half the T in a balanced count and side counting aces to increase the strength of playing decisions. The posts to compare are #17 for Hilo and #30 for the equivalent Hiopt2/ASC TC:

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/showthread.php?16620-Advantage-at-tc-1/page2

What you are looking at is the change in the width of the advantage bell curve when tagging the 2,3, 6 and 7 as half the other counted cards for an ace neutral level 2 count. Notice that both bell curves are right skewed but the range of advantage is very different. Including the tails Hilo ranges from a -2% advantage t a 3%+ (5%+ range) advantage around the 0.36% average for the conditions being looked, while Hiopt2/ASC -1% to 2% (3% range) around the average of .43%. If you look at the range between the vertical climb areas were the meat of the bell curve is Hilo ranges from -0.5% to 1.25% (a 1.75% range) around the .36% average. Hiopt2/ASC ranges from 0% to 0.9% (a 0.9% range) around the 0.43% average. So arrange deck compositions into more appropriate bins using traditional counting techniques, level2 and ace neutral, narrows the distribution of the advantage bell curve for the deck compositions that populate each TC bin considerably. But you still have the same right skewed shape. Most of the time you are over betting the deck composition by a little and under betting by a lot more rarely.

This is the issue you face when you rearrange everything into very large bins. The results may be more a lot more accurate but bins are still populated by very different deck compositions. If you could find a way to divide things into smaller bins that aren't populated by a random cross-section of unrelated deck compositions you have the chance that the sorting will become something more useful than moving them to another bin that has a large range of unrelated deck compositions. That is what happens when you reduce everything to one dimension, or as I like to call it a number on a number line.

If you figure out how to divide the TC bin of a very accurate (small range of advantage distribution around the TC average like the Hiopt2/ASC distribution rather than the Hilo distribution) betting count indicated by the narrow range of distribution of the TC bell curve around the TC average without adding them to another bin as is cone with a linear system, details about the related deck compositions appear that are washed away if you add them to other unrelated deck compositions. This may open doors for use of that very specific information that the linear approach to using data would never even see. What I have found the most interesting about various types of deck composition distinctions across various games is the ability to shape the short term which makes you look either more threatening or hardly a threat at all and can keep you sane when you go to extreme swings to mild swings in the short term.

In another thread I tried to explain some things but every expert didn't understand what can happen when you group highly related deck compositions together in smaller bins rather than just move the deck compositions to other really large bins where the added insight is diluted away by far more frequent and totally unrelated deck compositions or end up with smaller bins that are just random unrelated deck compositions from the parent population if the TC bin. The added ability to shape results by how related deck compositions behave similarly is lost with either of the latter. So to get the benefit you must figure out ways to group subsets of TC bins into groups of highly related deck compositions. There are a lot of ways to do this but I will leave it at that. I gave one example in the other thread. It is a weaker example but does work well at smoothing the ride in BJ when used properly.

My caution is this type of grouping into related deck compositions can smooth the ride or make it more volatile or have no effect on it. I have found it most useful to simply worry about taming crazy swings rather than SCORE or EV. To tame the ride you will always be giving up a little EV and SCORE. Like I said you can use this technique to increase SCORE and EV but that can cause the ride to the long run to get a lot crazier. Increased buy-ins and wide ranging results on the way to practically the same long run can flag you as a threat. I think the biggest benefit of doing this is lowering buy-in requirements to play through opportunities and smoothing results to being much less extreme in the short run with little change in EV. If getting to pretty much the same long run EV involves much fewer large wins or losses with smaller buy-in requirements you are often not even noticed. Suits worry that you will ruin their day, week, or month. If they know you aren't likely to do that from looking at your history they are much more comfortable letting you play.

So the point is to gather information on specific related deck compositions and figure out how to use that without increasing swings or diluting those specific deck compositions by adding them to a bin filled with much more frequent unrelated deck compositions. By reducing bets for over bet deck compositions that also far comparatively poorly on the doubles and splits it makes does wonders for muting swings, especially downswings. It isn't about maximizing EV. It is about generating EV in a more efficient way. I like doing that by giving up the EV that causes too much volatility from both over betting the actual deck composition and poor performance when you put more money on the table during the round. Often this is exactly why the deck compositions populate the low end for advantage of the TC bin.

I know this is probably more work researching and learning to be a more skilled counter than most want to do. But some either like doing research or are have more counting skills that are going to waste by not being used to their full efficiency. If you are described by both of these characteristics then you might consider learning a much more effective way to gather and use information. You will find all the rules taught by the traditional way of doing things don't necessarily apply in more than one dimension. Many are the exact opposite of what multi-dimension reality is. Where that is the case you can both increase performance and look like a total idiot.

 

[xengrifter]

We need to put a name to this count system -

- DumOpT3?
- TthreeUmmy Count?
- SuperOpT3?
- MultiDimDum?

...Anyone else? Weigh in with names and then we'll take a poll.
...Or does the Dummy already have a name for it? What is it called?

 

[Hell'nBack]

We need to put a name to this count system -

- DumOpT3?
- TthreeUmmy Count?
- SuperOpT3?
- MultiDimDum?

...Anyone else? Weigh in with names and then we'll take a poll.
...Or does the Dummy already have a name for it? What is it called?

The double reverse GrifterGambit?

 

[Dummy]

Call it whatever you want. I wasn't outlining a count but rather a method of using information gathered differently to identify specific related deck compositions that behave in similar fashions. Like you have a TC and it is all bet the same and makes the same playing decisions but you can identify a subset of the TC that does comparatively poorly on weaker doubles and splits and maybe makes them more frequently. Remember many splits are defensive so having a smaller bet out is the best solution when you are going to add more to the original bet in order to lose less. Some doubles you are mostly banking on a dealer bust and no so much on making a hand. Identifying these families of deck compositions that produce a lot more negative volatility for the amount of EV will have deeper an more frequent negative swings than other deck compositions within the TC that perform a lot better on doubles and splits. Those that use this technique successfully to smooth those negative swings out some and to a lesser degree swings in general identify these situations whether they realize it or not. Lots of things happen by happy accident. Reducing plus EV bets always reduces EV, but if the deck compositions that are reduced are the ones that perform worse on the volatile situations than the ones whose bets remain the same obviously that poor performance has less of an impact in the form of magnitude of downswing if the bet is smaller. Combine that with more conservative play on the marginal splits and doubles by waiting for more EV to have accumulated (a higher index since the gain at the index can be minimal and may be minimal for more than one TC) before matching your bet with a double or split. Linear counting tries to approximate some of this with RA play but the risk aversion may only apply to a portion of the TC bin. Usually risk aversion is because the count tags correlate poorly to the plays EoRs. Additional information can identify families of deck compositions that do particularly poorly and bet them less. That means the ones that are left have a better correlation to the play and don't need the same amount of risk aversion.

In another thread everyone kept illustrating my point that the run home to their linear momma when thinking about what is going on. They keep talking about global EoR when EoR's are composition dependent. The talk about a higher EV or SCORE when I have repeatedly said this will lower both EV and SCORE but can be used to smooth swings if done properly. I have also said it can increase swings with little change in statistics if it is not done properly. In that case you will bet more based on specific deck composition but the volatile bets that do comparatively poorly will also be bet more.

I am really sorry I brought this up because as usual the experts keep try to make things make sense in one dimension. Anyone that knows about analyzing multiple variables know that one dimensional analysis losses the interaction between the variable. That lost perspective can help or hurt the short term swings.

It is more about understanding why things work the way the do and doing what you can with information gathered to make adjustments based on that instead of understanding how to use a global formula. If you do that you can find situations that suggest a really big bet that have more likely negative swings for its EV, which may also be smaller than the rest of the TC bin, and bet less for those situations. You can either call bullshit on that, but I think that is obvious to everyone, or you can realize the types of opportunities are there in you gather and use the information differently. After making that realization you have to actually figure out the adjustments that do what I describe rather than just increase volatility. The results will be smaller and less frequent losses and more frequent wins. That will do wonders for swings.

The trouble with the long term stats is variance is a square so everything is positive with variance. Standard deviation is the square root of variance so it is always positive. SCORE uses EV and variance so lessening the swings from weak situations doesn't rate whether those swings were positive or negative. They all look the same. All long term stats use these numbers that are always positive so an increase in poor results on doubles and splits is the same thing as an increase in good results on doubles and splits. What you need to do is figure out what causes better and worse performance on volatile decisions and adjust bets an plays accordingly. Both will look the same in all the long term stats. I only suggested an effective way of dividing things up into related deck compositions so you had a shot at doing what is described here. It helps to understand the cause of why some deck compositions within a TC fair better on volatile decisions and other deck compositions within the same TC fair worse on volatile decisions. I am talking in terms of negative swings, not EV. Usually these situations have worse EV, but that is not a given.

If your perspective equates all deck compositions within a TC as the linear approach dictates you ca't even get to the idea that is being exploited. That is the problem I seem to have with experts and their comments. They argue from the idea that all deck composition within a TC are act in the same way. That is the theory used by the linear approach of using information gathered but I assumed everyone knew that the assumption being false is a given but making the assumption is the cornerstone of the way information is used by the linear approach to using information gathered. That is a whole bunch of diverse and unrelated deck compositions are grouped in a very large group with a wide range of stats and they are all be by the average of all their stats.

I keep trying to stress this but getting more specific can increase swings if you use it the wrong way. The long term stats are sign blind and don't indicate what type of impact the deck composition has on downswings. You need to do some extra study and understand things more to find the right criterion to get more specific about and what subsets of the TC defined by this to decrease your bets for. You are trying to ferret out situations that perform worse on doubles and splits and reduce their bets and be more picky about whether you make the doubles or splits. Both will cost you EV but will help reduce the downswings. Obvious there are lots of doubles and splits to consider. This is a very tedious process that numbers don't help much with. All the linear counting experts base their comments on worth it based on EV's and frequencies, but what you are trying to do is simply reduce negative swings. Negative swings are mostly caused by doubles and splits fairing poorly in general. There are two actions that will reduce negative swings in these situations. One is waiting for a higher TC before making the double or split . It reduces swings by making the volatile decision less frequently and fairing better on the time it does make the decision. The other way is to bet less when you know the deck composition is one that makes the negative swings from doubles and splits more likely. If you simply bet less for the specific situations the negative swings are reduced.

The concept is sound and should be agreed upon by all the experts. Whether it is worth it is a personal call. Some people live with unreal swings and just care about EV. This is not for them. Others want more certain short term results and abhor long and deep downswings making them willing to give up EV to reduce them. The results are more what they want but can they do it? Most probably either don't have the skills or don't have the perseverance to learn them. But there is a very small group of driven individuals that can develop the necessary skills and want to have more certain results. They would benefit from this.

If you don't get it by now you probably never will. Some may get it but think EV is more important than being tolerated or short term results. That is fine. But I wish people wouldn't speak from ignorance of any information on results excetera like they have played like this. For those people what happens is you are reducing the size and frequency of losses while increasing the frequency of wins on average over set short term number of rounds. The way the ride to the long run shapes out, the range and frequency of longer term downswings is defined by weighted sum of the frequencies and magnitudes of all your shorter term results. Smaller and less frequent losses have an obvious effect of decreasing the possibility of losses stacking up to a large longer term loss. It is simple math.

 

[psyduck]

We need to put a name to this count system -

- DumOpT3?
- TthreeUmmy Count?
- SuperOpT3?
- MultiDimDum?

...Anyone else? Weigh in with names and then we'll take a poll.
...Or does the Dummy already have a name for it? What is it called?

KingOfZenKings?

 

[psyduck]

Identifying these families of deck compositions that .........................

Identifying those compositions is good, but your method is incapable of identifying them although you think it does. Again, grouping 7s and 9s together is weak no matter how long your post is.

 

[johndoe]

Dummy/Tthree: Will you please just provide some OBJECTIVE measurements of how much benefit, exactly, there is in doing this, already?

Lower variance? Great, exactly how much lower? And how much does it affect EV?

Exactly how were your "results" validated?

Put up or shut up. Enough of this nonsense already. I'm agreeing with KJ that you have a serious mental problem of some sort.

 

[Dummy]

Variance isn't affected much. Like I said short term swings don't show up in long term stats. If I had a stat that would reflect smoother short term I would provide it but to my knowledge there is none. Those that use this can tell the difference very quickly. You just tend not to stay as far from EV, especially on the negative side. Every system defines how this tend to run. Most run below EV waiting for correction from strong runs to get back up to EV. This is the opposite. You tend to run more above EV and corrections drop you closer to EV. I like the latter better than the former. It sucks to lose what took months to win in a very short time or to be losing for months with little to be happy about. You just see these types of runs a lot less.

Exactly how were your "results" validated?

Records from a number of players that collaborated that all show a short term results have a very significant shift from larger losses and more frequent losses to less frequent and less severe losses. Mathematically the way these frequencies and magnitudes are likely to combine as short term results become long term results predict what is observed in far better behaved results that stay close to EV. I wish I knew a stat that could predict this for fine tuning things. If anyone knows of one I would be appreciative. This is just something nobody ever felt was important. Depending on the perspective they are either right or wrong. Most of you probably have the perspective that it isn't important but that perspective is from ignorance. I know how many of you think and you would probably still say it wasn't important if you actually could comment from an informed perspective. A few would think the gain in longevity and the easier ride to the long run is important. But as a reminder you are not maximizing any of the long term stats to get the change in results. They all fall an insignificant amount. That is why I think many would feel the ability to shape the short term was unimportant.

 

[psyduck]

Dummy/Tthree: Will you please just provide some OBJECTIVE measurements of how much benefit, exactly, there is in doing this, already?

Lower variance? Great, exactly how much lower? And how much does it affect EV?

Exactly how were your "results" validated?

Put up or shut up. Enough of this nonsense already. I'm agreeing with KJ that you have a serious mental problem of some sort.

Let me try to answer it for Dummy Tthree: "I don't have data to support what I claimed, but I just know my system is super strong. There is no other possibility that it is weak. By the way, I have no mental problem. I do have people I can talk to and they are all on the internet."

 

[Dummy]

I don't have data to support what I claimed, but I just know my system is super strong.

I keep telling you this isn't my baby. AP's that were already doing this contacted me to see if my approach to using data explains why results changed so drastically. I didn't know enough to answer them right away but I eventually figured out what they were doing that was causing this change in short term results. It is hard to have a conversation when one person has the information every asks about but people just keep making up their own answers and acting like they are right and the answer from the only one that can know is wrong. My system doesn't track neutral cards. I use my brainpower for other extra information. But when I play BJ I do this more often because for most BJ games it does a better job of smoothing the short term and I like not losing much and winning more. The problem with your analysis of what something is worth is the value is always diluted almost to nothing by being averaged in with a boatload of unrelated deck compositions that are far more frequent. It isn't about making adjustments to bet more accurately. It is about making adjustments that specifically reduce negative volatility but volatility in general is reduced as well but that is greatly diluted as I have tried to explain so the change is barely noticeable.

 

[johndoe]

It doesn't matter if it's your baby. You're the one wasting forum space for YEARS evangelizing a vague system that has NO evidence of having ANY benefit whatsoever over more common (and far easier) counting systems. No matter how many thousands of words you write about this, you'll never be able to provide one, single, reliable statistic or definitive, testable claim of any kind.

So it doesn't reduce variance, but it does mitigate short-term swings, huh?

This is pure mental illness.

 

[psyduck]

Let me be specific. My system makes the fluctuation very very small. When I get a BJ, I win most of the time. Other times I push, but never ever lose.

 

[psyduck]

So it doesn't reduce variance, but it does mitigate short-term swings, huh?

That is hard for a simple system to do. Only a super duper system can do it.

 

[Dummy]

You're the one wasting forum space for YEARS evangelizing a vague system that has NO evidence of having ANY benefit whatsoever over more common (and far easier) counting systems.

I have only mentioned this in the last week. Again deciding what is true and having no clue how wrong you are because you have no way of knowing the truth.

So it doesn't reduce variance, but it does mitigate short-term swings, huh?

You really don't understand what variance is and how it differs from what happens in the short term. Variance is the square of extreme long term average of results' differences from their average. It has no information on positive or negative short term swings. That would require information on frequency distribution and size of wins and losses. It has no information on how wins and losses are likely to add upon one another. If you look at the variance for a large set of data it is the same number whether all wins came in a row and all losses came in a row or whether they alternated and you never really had any cumulative plus or minus. It would just calculate the average for the data set and take the differences for each point from the average and sum the squares of that information etc. The order the data came in makes no difference for variance. Obviously variance doesn't say anything about the short term. I got news for you some deck compositions fair better than others but end up being in the same bin so they are bet the same. Some of the time that poor performance is because they are deck compositions that do worse when the doubles and splits that all the deck compositions that reduce to the same number on a number-line are treated the same. Frequency of certain doubles and splits change and the success rate of the doubles and splits change depending on the deck composition within the TC bin. How large your bets are and the frequency and success rate of doubles and splits are the primary driver of short term swings.

This is all pretty basic stuff. The tricky part is knowing what to look for and gathering and using the information in a way to isolate those deck compositions that contribute most to downswings by their poor performance and then doing what you can to reduce the swings. The thing about playing a deck composition is once you have it no matter how rare it is your short term will have you playing more or less that deck composition for many bets in a row. If those bets all have poor performance for that deck composition guess what tends to happen in a short run where they are not bet less and the poor performing doubles and splits are made as aggressively as the part of the TC bin that the same doubles and splits perform much better is more frequent and severe downswings than the rest of the TC bin. I am pretty sure you know that this is were a downswing is likely but you can alter things to do something about it. The better performing deck compositions for doubles and splits tend to have upswings. To variance both look exactly the same and affect variance the same if they have the same magnitude difference from the average. Positive and negative both become positive once the data is squared. But you can figure out what these achilles heal deck compositions are concerning downswings and alter how you bet and play them. You just can't see anything about short term downswings in long term stats. SD is the square root of variance and is always positive. But long term stats work well for n-zero and other long term applications. They are just mute on what happens in the short term. It takes short term records to do that.

 

[johndoe]

You've been going on and on about this same subject for YEARS. There is no denying it. Oh, that was for SP21 before, right? I'm sure there's a big difference now. This is all the same delusional garbage we've been hearing for years.

Another big wall of text, and not a single concrete answer, testable claim, or any evidence whatsoever. This is fully into crackpot territory, without any question.

Put up or shut up already.

Provide concrete evidence of any objective benefit, and you'll earn plenty of respect here. But you won't, because you can't.

 

[Dummy]

Provide concrete evidence of any objective benefit, and you'll earn plenty of respect here.

I don't care about respect. Occasionally I try to help point people in better directions for research by thinking outside the box. Since I don't do redundant research of what others have already done, it is always stuff nobody has seen before. This time I was asked to research why the ride was smoothed by several AP's that were using a tweaks they had developed from observations playing and from detailed records over many years. The were using middle card information to modify bets where doubles and splits did worse without really knowing it. I had to figure out why my system did so well at controlling swings to understand what was going on. That took years of research before I could respond to Don tasking me to figure out what was happening. Their system was different betting less in deck compositions that had the worst downswings and they were adjusting when to make doubles and splits to control swings. After figuring it out, they only adjusted for the poor performing doubles and splits and did even better. This will cost a tiny bit of EV and hurt your SCORE as variance doesn't show that downswings are reduced since variance looks at everything together globally. Swings are a local phenomena.

(My system, that is not for BJ, deals with betting a lot more in low volatility and a lot less in high volatility and wonging to favor playing low volatility and betting one spot in high volatile plus EV situations to allow others to eat volatile rounds and further increase the skewing toward generating more EV from extreme low volatility, with .3% of the same EV which is virtually the same EV. (It can do this because my system manages to sort deck compositions by volatility, both variance and covariance change on much the same lines. I get a very wide range of variance and covariance.) That is because the EV I give up in high volatility rounds are made up during the increased EV and increased frequency of low volatility rounds. But SCORE decreases slightly because despite incredibly smoothing swings from EV being generated more from bonus payouts instead increasing what you risk to lose as with EV generated by doubling and splitting. Unfortunately BJ is too linear. I haven't figured out a way sort things to get any global useful difference in volatility in BJ. I wish I could say I am a genius and did my system to accomplish what it does. It was just a happy side effect of what I was doing and how the research developed. Don tasked me to figure out what was happening and after years of study I did and then using that understanding I figured out how to make it happen systematically by design rather than a happy accident.)

But in a some small areas this effect was almost what made these AP's results show smaller losses and more frequent wins in the same way as what I do. They didn't find deck compositions that have more volatility and bet them less. They found areas that had more of a contribution to negative volatility and bet those less and played them less aggressively. That is a totally different concept that shapes results in a very similar way. Of course that gave up a little EV and had almost no affect on variance which of course hurt SCORE minimally.

You can either understand the concepts and know what I am saying is true or you can show your ignorance by demanding proof when no long term stat shows this effect because volatility stats all have the same sign whether you are talking about upswings or downswings. I suspect some of the experts at using other peoples ideas really don't know anywhere near as much as they think they do in general. They may be extreme experts within the realm of what they do but just don't get concepts that their world never has a use for because it can't see them with the way data is gathered and processed. Why take an MRI and reduce everything to one image like an X-ray when you can use all the data gathered to see the entire image by seeing all the images simultaneously and forming a 3 dimensional image? Useful details that are missed when you lose one or more dimensions might save your life, BR, or sanity.

 

[johndoe]

Another treatise without any evidence whatsoever.

You're full of bullshit, you won't provide any evidence because you cannot. You are living in a crackpot fantasy world.

Put up or shut up. Provide at least ONE piece of actual evidence (not "explanations"). Real evidence. Of any real benefit of this magical system of yours.

What concrete, measurable benefits are there, and how were they measured? If you cannot answer this question, you have nothing of value at all.

 

[Hell'nBack]

Oh no! All my most bizarre fantasies have been dashed again.

 

[Dummy]

You're full of bullshit, you won't provide any evidence because you cannot.

I am working on a way to have a short term downswings statistic. So far every expert says there is no such statistic, so I will have to invent something. Without that there is no way to show what I am talking about through sims. You can't even seem to understand that. If you were an expert you would know that you are asking for something that hasn't been invented yet. Of course it is the perfect way to make a straw man argument, which is a tactic of someone that can't argue facts and instead, after realizing he has no valid argument to make, attacks the other person rather than the idea being debated. It is the tactic of someone that has no leg to stand on in the discussion. I am curious as to what you think ferreting out deck compositions that fair worse on the doubles and splits and maybe makes them more and doing something about it by betting them less and doubling and splitting less aggressively would do to those sessions where you play those deck compositions. Being a bit of a rhetorical question, as I think we all know that results in those session will not be as volatile and be far less likely to be negative. The EV will be slightly less but you will win more often and lose less when you lose. But you can't discuss that because we all know that is true. Instead you attack the poster instead of the idea because that is all you can do. You demand stats you know don't exist or worse, show how little you understand by believing long term stats will tell you anything about the short term. Statistically this shouldn't affect an AP. Just have the BR for the swings and fire away. But we don't play on a computer, we play in a casino. Things that help you get away with playing are a big asset. This would shape results and buy-ins in a way that helps casinos be more comfortable with letting you play while at the same time make your results more tolerable for you.

 

[johndoe]

So how do you even know this works at all? What simulation or analysis did you do to conclude that this was beneficial? Surely you have some data of some kind, and aren't just relying on anecdotes and "personal experience".

Just plot the data, or output it in a spreadsheet format or something. You do have data, don't you? Whatever hard data you have, post it.

There is no strawman here, nor is there an ad hominim (which is the phrase you're looking for). You've been making claims for years about this "system", and still, never once, have you provided a shred of evidence that it works. Nothing whatsoever, still, after thousands of words written about it. And we'll continue to call you out on your bullshit until evidence is provided.