Computer Perfect Play

**NotEnoughHeat** · 08-12-2016, 11:55 PM

I am having a bit of a hard time looking this up simply because of the search terms, but I'd imagine that there would be literature available on it somewhere.

I am looking for anything on computer perfect play, even a short blurb would do to satisfy my curiosity as this isn't really much of a means to an end but the end itself.

What am referring to as computer perfect play is not normal counting but the perfectly mathematically correct play (betting and playing strategy) taking into consideration every card dealt and currently showing. So calculating the exact EV for betting as well as playing decisions. The type of thing I imagine some players used small computers for before such things were banned in Nevada.

What kind of edge would be achievable? The reason this piques my interest is that it is the absolute upper limit for counting, although not anywhere close to what is reasonable for a human to do with just their heads without betraying what they are doing (or even at all nevertheless).

Any short articles, webpages, books, references would be appreciated.

**mofungoo** · 08-13-2016, 03:20 AM

Ken Uston estimated the advantage to be 3% in a deeply dealt 1D game, in Million Dollar Blackjack, for a play using a concealed computer.

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 08-13-2016, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by mofungoo

"Ken Uston estimated the advantage to be 3% in a deeply dealt 1D game,
in Million Dollar Blackjack, for a play using a concealed computer."

In the 1970's those SD games were dealt with good rules.

Obviously, today's DD and shoe games would be far far less than 3%

**NotEnoughHeat** · 08-13-2016, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by mofungoo

Ken Uston estimated the advantage to be 3% in a deeply dealt 1D game, in Million Dollar Blackjack, for a play using a concealed computer.

Were these computers actually doing computer perfect play, opposed to just computer play (ie. the computer just counts hi lo, or any other regular count, perfectly)? If what I am talking about is really computationally difficult as Don says, I don't imagine a computer back then having the power to make such calculation in a timely manner. 3% just seems a bit low to me. It seems like the edge a person would get counting a deeply dealt 1D game with good pen.

**DSchles** · 08-13-2016, 08:24 PM

Short answer: yes, the concealed computer was reckoning every card played.

And no, especially for the shoe game, 3% doesn't seem the least bit low to me. When this study is completed, a lot of people who think they have reinvented sliced bread and play almost "perfectly" are going to be awfully disappointed by what the edge actually is.

Don

RS · 12-20-2016, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by NotEnoughHeat

Were these computers actually doing computer perfect play, opposed to just computer play (ie. the computer just counts hi lo, or any other regular count, perfectly)? If what I am talking about is really computationally difficult as Don says, I don't imagine a computer back then having the power to make such calculation in a timely manner. 3% just seems a bit low to me. It seems like the edge a person would get counting a deeply dealt 1D game with good pen.

IMO.....

First off, not sure what Don is doing. I'd assume he's crunching the numbers on a 6 deck shoe. Doing that for "all situations" is going to take a whole hell of a long time. But he's trying to figure out the edge/advantage over the course of all of your play -- that's different from what a computer would be doing in live-play at a deeply dealt SD game. The live-play computer would just be calculating the result for the current hand. I'm not sure what kind of computing power there was back in the 60's or 70's, but I'd imagine it'd still have been very quick.

Figuratively, using a computer at live-play would be like asking a computer to calculate the next prime number after 250,000,000 (which would take about 1 second). Don is trying to calculate all the prime numbers from 2 to 1,000,000,000....or something like that.

**AndretheGiant** · 08-13-2016, 06:59 AM

On Bj21 Don S mentioned he was working on an answer to this.

**DSchles** · 08-13-2016, 07:41 AM

Yes, I am. We are working on the answer to the precise question that the OP posed. And no, the answer isn't in print anywhere.

I am working with Eric Farmer and Gronbog, and I'm confident that we'll have answers. If the study, along with another than Gronbog is doing with Tarzan, proves interesting, I am thinking of adding another appendix to BJA3 and publishing the findings when the book is reprinted early next year. This is computationally very intensive, so don't expect a quick result.

Stay tuned!

Don

**NotEnoughHeat** · 08-13-2016, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by DSchles

Yes, I am. We are working on the answer to the precise question that the OP posed. And no, the answer isn't in print anywhere.

I am working with Eric Farmer and Gronbog, and I'm confident that we'll have answers. If the study, along with another than Gronbog is doing with Tarzan, proves interesting, I am thinking of adding another appendix to BJA3 and publishing the findings when the book is reprinted early next year. This is computationally very intensive, so don't expect a quick result.

Stay tuned!

Don

Would it be possible to acquire the appendix separately? I bought the recent print not too long ago. Since I'm not much of a collector, it seems a little much to have two copies of BJA3 that are nearly identical save the new appendix.

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 08-13-2016, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by NotEnoughHeat

"Would it be possible to acquire the appendix separately? I bought the recent print not too long ago. Since I'm not much of a collector, it seems a little much to have two copies of BJA3 that are nearly identical save the new appendix."

Me, myself, and I own all of the editions of BJA; ergo I too would
love to have this NEW planned appendix to print out and tape in.

While BJA is the one book that we MUST have, I cannot fathom a
new player, willing to 'contribute' their money to the casinos, but
too cheap to own what I consider the BIBLE of BLACKJACK !

**DSchles** · 08-13-2016, 08:25 PM

Let's not put the cart before the horse. Let me see how it all turns out.

Don

**Heisenberg** · 12-19-2016, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by DSchles

Yes, I am. We are working on the answer to the precise question that the OP posed. And no, the answer isn't in print anywhere.

I am working with Eric Farmer and Gronbog, and I'm confident that we'll have answers. If the study, along with another than Gronbog is doing with Tarzan, proves interesting, I am thinking of adding another appendix to BJA3 and publishing the findings when the book is reprinted early next year. This is computationally very intensive, so don't expect a quick result.

Stay tuned!

Don

Any news on this ? Thx

**DSchles** · 12-20-2016, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

Any news on this ? Thx

Getting closer. Eric and Gronbog are working independently, and I'm trying to serve as middle man to coordinate the two efforts (Perfect play and SCORE of Tarzan count). Lots of work, as all are perfectionists who want to "get it right."

The irony is that I'm reasonably sure that I already know the magnitude of what the answers will be, and people are going to be disappointed all around.

Don