Parker: Casino Verite - Software Review

[ET Fan]

... a more global approach?

Imagine a program that took an "intelligent interest" in blackjack, and it's variants, and made up it's *own* list of features to investigate, and did sims on it's own as you slept, with only occasional input from you -- it's front end to the real world.

I know the use of Intelligent Agents has been limited by their lack of common sense about the real world. But games like blackjack, which can be completely described in terms of set theory, should be *very* fruitful ground.

Here's my theory, FWIW: highly advanced programs of this sort already exist, and are being kept from the public for the same reason advanced BJ techniques are kept from the AP community at large. There may also be the fear people could be frightened away from computer use altogether.

Maybe with your contacts ...

ETF

[Sun Runner]

> Here's my theory .. advanced BJ techniques are kept from the AP community at large.

Who do you believe to have devised these techniques and why would they keep them from the AP community? (other than for their own personal gain, of course.)

[Norm Wattenberger]

My field, outside of Blackjack, is computer decision making. There are four main methodologies for automated decision making: expert systems, fuzzy logic, heuristics and analytical hierarchical process. The Blackjack Strategy Advisor on qfit.com and in CV uses fuzzy logic. Most of my work is with AHP. I?ve looked at BJ a few times from an automated decision making sense and it doesn?t really fit. BJ is just too simple. These methodologies are designed for complex decisions. They are also designed for computer decisions. Not for development of human strategies. Computers are good at making decisions, good at aiding people in making decisions and good at fine-tuning a human-capable strategy. But, they are not good at devising from scratch an innovative human strategy.

I don?t think there are many BJ techniques that haven?t been discussed to some extent in public. I believe that the problem with advancing to higher-level techniques has been the lack of practice tools. Take a technique like counting by inference. The concept is simple enough. The tables are not complex. But should you decide to use this technique, how do you know if you are using it correctly? How do you know you?re not harming yourself? Personally, I wouldn?t try such a technique if I didn?t have some method of verifying that my play is any better with it than without it. (To tell the truth, I think that most people that call themselves card counters don?t have the standard techniques down and don't play nearly as well as they think.) This thinking was behind my design for CVBJ V3, and CVData. Techniques like counting by inference, multi-parameter tables, varying indexes and betting by deck depth are included in both. Take a more obvious technique ? back-counting two tables at once. A valuable technique if performed accurately. I added this drill because I think many people try this and probably don?t realize that they are messing up the count and ending up with worse results than if they had just kept it simple. In this manner you can determine the gain through simulation and you can ensure that you are actually playing the game as simulated. No one in a casino is going to tell you that you aren?t doing it correctly.

Of course one example where you are correct about the lack of information on advanced techniques is NRS. With CVShuffle, CVBJ provides the ability to practice counting adjustments when you use NRS. But, I don?t test the NRS calculations themselves or even mention NRS in the documentation as the area is still too sensitive.

Serious Blackjack Software