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%

**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

**Three** · 08-13-2016, 08:11 AM

I would trust Gronbog's work. Eric Farmer has been an outstanding contributor to the site (But too infrequent) who has no agenda only a curiosity for more knowledge. This gets to the city gritty and always allows a potential unintended bias to be resimmed while compensating for the bias. I can't wait.

**davethebuilder** · 08-13-2016, 08:13 AM

I think Katarina Walker did this for Spanish 21 and Australian Pontoon. She called it the Level 4 or Level 5 counting system but it was never published. I could look up the results if that helps.

**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.

**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 !

**Three** · 08-13-2016, 11:52 AM

Today your best advantage obtained at deeply dealt shoe games (6deck/0.5 cut off) and a huge spread the best advantage is just over 2% but you must use Hiopt2/ASC full indices.

**Tarzan** · 08-13-2016, 05:04 PM

It's an exciting project. It's like the difference between saying, "We think the universe is about 13.5 billion years old" with this being the accepted gold standard or Lawrence Krauss working it out with absolute precision out to four decimal points that the universe is 13.72 billion years old.

**Three** · 08-13-2016, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Tarzan

Lawrence Krauss working it out with absolute precision out to four decimal points that the universe is 13.72 billion years old.

I hope he is better at expressing 4 decimal places than you are. LoL

Sorry Tarzan but you can't lob straight lines like that up and not expect someone to joke about it.