"I cut my teeth on all gaming-related with Scarne in the late '50s and early '60s."
Then, are you the original Greasy John?
Arnold Snyder's forthcoming "Big Book of Blackjack" will have material on Scarne. Suffice it to say that his blackjack strategies were incorrect and he would never admit that the Baldwin Group and then Thorp and his successors were right and that he, John Scarne was wrong.
> "I cut my teeth on all gaming-related with Scarne
> in the late '50s and early '60s."
> Then, are you the original Greasy John?
> Arnold Snyder's forthcoming "Big Book of
> Blackjack" will have material on Scarne. Suffice
> it to say that his blackjack strategies were incorrect
> and he would never admit that the Baldwin Group and
> then Thorp and his successors were right and that he,
> John Scarne was wrong.
died many years ago. I'm Audley Walsh. Or is it Teeko. Haha. In "Scarne's Complete Guide to Gambling" John Scarne states on pg. 340 to "Never split Fours, Fives, Sixes or Nines." Although Scarne's knowlegde of cons, cheating and the history of gambling was unsurpassed, his advice regarding correct blackjack strategy "has yet to be proved." Do you know the scene in "The Sting" where Paul Newman deals seconds while keeping the ace of spades as the top card on the deck. You are looking at the hands of John Scarne.
Greasy John
The real Greasy John died shortly after retiring from blackjack. It's in Thorp's book.
> You're dating yourself with the Scarne reference! I
> cut my teeth on all gaming-related with Scarne in the
> late '50s and early '60s.
> As you could see from my calculations, there's really
> no reason to complicate matters with the conversion to
> 100%. It doesn't help in any way and just serves to
> complicate matters. Use the 15 and the 34, and then
> divide by 49. No decimals, no rounding, no problem!
> :-)
> Don
I found my original calculations. I divided 49 by 15 (oops) and got 3.26666. I immediately noticed that this number "resembles", a number that when converted to a percent, was just less than the 33.33% I knew it was supposed to be. (I know. It would be 326%.) So I quickly converted this (oops) to a 32.666% chance that the dealer would have the goods. And the rest as they say is history...
Greasy John
> You've just won a promotional contest where you get to
> play one hand of BJ for ... a million dollars! (And
> yes, insuring a natural, or calling "even
> money" is allowed.) Single-deck, dealt right off
> the top. You get a natural, and the dealer shows an
> ace. Now, I ask ALL of you: Are you going to tell me,
> to a man (or woman!), that not one of you would take
> the million?! :-) You don't expect me to believe that,
> do you? :-)
> Food for thought, and the concept of utility vs. e.v.
I don't have my copy of ToB with me, but isn't this similar to a scenario Griffin describes where partial insurance is the correct EV-maximising option?
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks