Dr. Thorp's "Ultimate" Counting Strategy

Last night, I was reading in T.J. Reynolds' "Complete Book of Blackjack" (pg. 142) that Dr. Thorp "eventually came up with a system that provided almost perfect wagering information. He called his last program the "Thorp Ultimate," and it reprsented a 99.6% correct betting strategy. The values were as follows:

2s= 5
3s= 6
4s= 8
5s= 11
6s= 6
7s= 4
8s= 0
9s= -3
Ts= -7
Aces= -9"

The author says that for anyone other than a "mathematical magician," Thorp's Ultimate Strategy is "too difficult to count and implement" and therefore "not worth serious consideration at all."

I am not a counter, but I am good at adding numbers fast. With lots of practice, I am fairly sure I could 'count down' a single deck (or whatever) using Thorp's Ultimate Strategy in a fast enough time.

I don't see much discussion about Dr. Thorp's Ultimate Strategy anywhere. It seems to offer a lot in terms of advantage, and to say that its counting system is too "difficult" for the best blackjack players in the world (my description of some of those who frequent this website) (who, overall, are probably very good at adding numbers fast in their head and who might even keep a side count of aces or even use a multi-level counting system) seems almost frivolous.

Any thoughts? Has anyone actually used the Ultimate Counting Strategy?

What are your thoughts?

It doesn't.

This was a long time ago. Systems have evolved. Wong's Halves is now the Rolls Royce of counting systems insofar as betting correlation is concerned. It is virtually 100%, and it is what we call "level 3," which means no tag value is greater in absolute value than 3, and that is just a single rank -- the fives.

So, start slowly, and if you want to "graduate" to that count, that's something to aim for. Forget about the Ultimate Count; no one plays that.

Don

requires using the point count divided by the number of cards dealt to calculate the advantage for betting and the ratio of others to tens for insurance and playing. The ratio of others to tens is used for betting late in the deck. Games were one-deck, with very deep penetration in the early 1960s, when the first edition of Thorp's Beat the Dealer was written. The Ultimate Strategy is completely impractical for today's blackjack games.

Out of curiousity, you state that Wong's Halves is the "Rolls Royce of counting systems... It is virtually 100%...".

From what I have read online and subsequently reviewed with CVData, if one utilizes an Ace Side Count, Bryce Carlson's Advanced Omega II (B2), Ken Uston's UAPC (B3), and Rich Victor's VAPC (B3), all offer approx. 99% BC with higher PE and IC than Wong's Halves.

I am unclear why you elevate Wong's Halves to the status as the premiere system over other comparable systems that match it for BC, while surpassing it for PE and IC.

I am always interested in learning something new (what drives me to this forum), and would love to understand your reasoning. Thank you in advance for your clarification.

"I am unclear why you elevate Wong's Halves to the status as the premiere system over other comparable systems that match it for BC, while surpassing it for PE and IC."

It's dangerous to quote out of context, and to cite HALF of what I wrote, instead of providing the entire sentence. This is what I said, with my emphasis added:

"Wong's Halves is now the Rolls Royce of counting systems insofar as betting correlation is concerned.

And I wrote exactly what I meant. Without needing a side count of aces, Wong's Halves gives virtually 100% betting correlation. Even WITH a side of aces, the counts you cite can't equal Halves. If you are familiar with my SCORE chapter, you probably realize that I know a little bit about system comparisons and relative strength of counting systems. You simply misunderstood what I wrote.

Don

No problems, nor any disrespect intended. Sorry if it came across that way, or if you interpreted my comments in that light.

I was merely interested in trying to understand the reasoning behind your prior post vis-a-vis Wong's Halves against all other systems. I was not viewing the discussion from a SCORE analysis perspective (yes, I know that it is explained in BJA, and that it is the acronym for Standardized Comparison Of Risk and Expectation).

From reviewing charts and from reading and participating in online discussions on other forum, I perceived that WITH an Ace side count, each of those other systems could get to 99% BC. I accept your representation that they are not as powerful as Wong's Halves.

Please understand that using a side count of Aces at the tables provides no difficulties for me. So, using a side count, or not using one, for purposes of my energies and focus while playing blackjack, is irrelevant. I am just interested in the BC that comparable systems (those starting with the same BC, and then moving to PE and IC) can generate, which is why I was seeking your clarification.

Once again, my apologies if I offended you, as that was not my intent.

Thank you for your follow-up.

As identified in BJA3, the strongest all-purpose counts, if you permit ace side count, are Hi-Opt II and Advanced Omega II. They are quite similar and comparable.

Don

Don,

I just created another color-coded spreadsheet for myself (tool for me to learn a counting system's index numbers) for Wong's Halves, but the tag values being doubled, and the index numbers being doubled. Much simpler for me to keep track of whole integers, rather than decimals while playing. Just have to learn higher/lower index numbers due to doubling effect.

Will this work properly? Or will the index numbers be off? I am uncertain as to whether the index numbers are whole integers, or if my doubling will through them askew.

Also, looking through my copy of Wong's Professional Blackjack, Table 33, Late Surrender, does not specify whether it is included in the book for HiLo, 5-Count or Halves. Will this work for Halves, and if so, I assume that the numbers should also be doubled, since tag values being doubled.

I take it that I should also ramp down by bet spread so that it increases only at twice my current levels (e.g. - 2 units being bet at TC=+2, would now bet 2 units at TC=+4). Is this correct?

I'm just curious if the gain by using Wong Halves over a simple Hi-Lo can be quantified. Say you have a min $25 bet and max $500 bet, how much can you gain per hour? Is it worth the effort to focus at the game to use this. For a $2/hour gain, it's good. For a $0.05/hour gain, not so good.

Never mind, if I double the tag values but keep the index numbers constant, and determine TC by 1/2 deck, then there shouldn't be any discrepancies with the accuracy of the index numbers. Correct?

"I just created another color-coded spreadsheet for myself (tool for me to learn a counting system's index numbers) for Wong's Halves, but the tag values being doubled, and the index numbers being doubled. Much simpler for me to keep track of whole integers, rather than decimals while playing. Just have to learn higher/lower index numbers due to doubling effect.

"Will this work properly?"

No, not perfectly.

"Or will the index numbers be off? I am uncertain as to whether the index numbers are whole integers, or if my doubling will through them askew."

The indices are generated for the way Wong intended the system to be used -- with his half-values. Suppose an index is correct for the 2 to 3 "bucket," and if you had created a precise value to one decimal place, it would have been, say, 2.5. Wong would have floored that to 2. Now, when you double it, you get 4, but 4 is wrong; it should be 5. Do you see the potential error you introduce?

If you were to double Wong's tag numbers but then divide for TC by remaining number of HALF decks, that would be an excellent system, akin to the Revere Point count, only better.

Another alternative is Norm's FELT (fairly easy level two), documented in his Modern Blackjack and on his web site.

"Also, looking through my copy of Wong's Professional Blackjack, Table 33, Late Surrender, does not specify whether it is included in the book for HiLo, 5-Count or Halves. Will this work for Halves, and if so, I assume that the numbers should also be doubled, since tag values being doubled."

Everything is Hi-Lo. But 8-8 v. 10 is wrong. It should be +1 if NDAS and +2 if DAS. Just use all the B tables from the Appendix for Halves.

"I take it that I should also ramp down by bet spread so that it increases only at twice my current levels (e.g. - 2 units being bet at TC=+2, would now bet 2 units at TC=+4). Is this correct?"

Yes, but consider dividing by half-decks, and it will solve your problem and maintain the values you're accustomed to.

Don

... just as you posted. Our messages crossed.

Don

Depends on game, rules, etc. Yes, the gain is significant.

Don

the halves count. Further substantiation of my previous post on green chip......regardless of count u use, the 3 and 6 must be the same, as demonstrated by ultimate count given here.

How can you believe that any human being on Earth could use this count as the cards are flipping??

You can get he money with far simpler methods. Don't sacrifice EV due to errors.

Rule has been widely ignored for decades. Famous quote from Winston Churchill: "It's a foolish rule, up with which I will not put"!! :-)

Don

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/04/churchill-preposition/