Don Schlesinger: Just what is "Basic Strategy"?

[BruceTC]

> The idea is to use among all these
> strategies the "one" that gives
> you the best EV. Since we can't play the
> "optimal" strategy the best we can
> do is to memorize a c-d strategy for the
> rules we're going to face. When I say c-d I
> mean c-d/t-d (c-d for the first two cards
> and t-d for the rest).

I understand, Cacarulo, and that is what I do for actual games. I know the c-d rules for single-deck, but I have yet to learn and memorize the specific c-d rules for 6-Deck. Right now, I use only t-d BS for 6-Deck (except for, of course, splitting pairs). I will make a point of learning the rest. Thanks :^)

> You can use whatever strategy you want. For
> example STAND on any two cards against any
> dealer's upcard.

Ahh.... You must be referring to the "Austin Powers" method of Blackjack. ;^)

BruceTC

[MathProf]

I ma sorry I have missed most of his discussion, but I had to be off-line most of the weekend. I have read some, but not all, the posts in this thread, so forgive me if I am being redundant.

From what I can tell, the term "Basic Strategy" was coined by Thorp in Beat The Dealer. It was used as the first strategy one would learn, before proceeding to learn counting strategy. That is, it was simply the "Basic" strategy, what you would learn in BJ 101, before going on to advanced stuff.

Now the 101 course in any subject is necessarily going to be incomplete. It will not give the student a full grasp of all the complexities and subtleties of a subject. There is going to some difference of opinion as to what would be the most appropriate curriculum for any 101 course, and how much detail you will go into. So to some extent, we cannot expect there to be a "the" basic strategy.

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."

My motivation for this is partly political. Most of us do a lot of Standing on 16v10, and it sticks out like a sore thumb to civilians. It would be easier on us, if the "book" said to Stand rather than Hit. There are legitimate mathematical reasons for this approach as well, but I wouldn't push it so much if I didn't see this political gain.

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.

[Don Schlesinger]

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

[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

[Igor]

?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.