And, I agree with virtually everything you've written.
One question: Do your "fine points" (actually c-d BS) go beyond two-card totals, or do you draw the line at what is "basic," even for fine points?
Don
And, I agree with virtually everything you've written.
One question: Do your "fine points" (actually c-d BS) go beyond two-card totals, or do you draw the line at what is "basic," even for fine points?
Don
> From this, we can create BS matrices that
> are "correct" according to our
> definitions.
> The next problem comes when we create EV
> tables that are NOT predicated on the above
> assumptions, but rather on perfect
> combinatorial analysis. In essence, we're
> claiming that the EVs are
> "correct," but they're not
> according to "our" BS. This may or
> may not be problematic for some.
It turns out that using the matrix generated by CA (the architect) is better than using the matrix generated according to our definitions. The definitions mainly apply to the way of playing.
> Finally, I point out that, unfortunately, no
> real-world live game (Internet is different)
> is played with a shuffle after every round
> (not even the CSMs!), and, therefore, all
> real-world BS EVs are actually somewhat
> poorer than what we theoreticians like to
> write that they are.
I've found some slots which have a great advantage off-the-top and there I use c-d the way I explained before.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
> If I were to define what I would consider as
> Basic Strategy, I would use total dependent
> strategy. I would treat two card
> compositions as "Fine Points" of
> Basic Strategy. I think I first picked up
> this term from Revere's book and I think it
> is a good one. So in one sense, we have tow
> form of Basic: the basic Basic, and the Fine
> Points.
> There are, of course, multi-card exceptions
> ot BS. But if we try to list all of these,
> we have a strategy which is hardly basic. In
> fact, it would be more difficult to master,
> and less useful, than elementary counting
> strategies.
> I do not treat any pairs as fine-points. We
> have to list to separate entry for pairs
> anyways. So in particular, I would have the
> 77v10 Stand in Single Deck as part of the
> BS.
> I also treat 16v10 differently:
> "Surrender if possible, otherwise
> Stand. Fine-Points: Hit 10-6 and 9-7."
In fact what you're doing here is dividing BS into two or three parts:
1) Basic basic (t-d)
2) Finer points
3) Splits
But when you're going to put real money you'll need all parts together. And now, you're into my definition which is (c-d) + t-d after the first two cards.
For me basic strategy is the best you can do without counting cards.
> Finally, I would use the optimal
> EV-maximizing strategy off the top of the
> deck as the criterion for the Basic
> Strategy, only because this is what is
> Basic.
Agree but haven't analyzed the min-cost strategy yet
Good to see you around.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
?perfectly useless comment.
How would one approach rigorous analysis of the twenty-one game if there had never been one before, if electronic computation were not available and if one were thoroughly trained in probability analysis and implementation of statistical tools and techniques?
Overall expectation is obviously the summation of the products of the likelihood of the 550 unique starts and their individual expectations. But as two-card hand hit or stand decisions become three and more card decisions, the numbers of undealt subsets proliferate. With pair splits the number of undealt subsets explodes and clearly the time required for exact calculation would exceed the human lifespan.
This is precisely the situation faced by Alan Wilson at the beginning of the fifties. And his approach, which was part exact calculation and part statistical approximation, comprise perhaps half of his 1966 The Casino Gamblers' Guide.
But everyone here already knows this.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks