Some information would be appreciated

For one of my math classes I have to give a presentation on the history of a mathematical subject. As my subject I chose the history of mathematics behind card counting.

I'm looking for information that could help me with this. I already ordered Thorp's book, since that is the start of the history. Do you know any other information that could help me.

I'm especially interested in the motives of the people who contributed a lot to the history of card counting. For instance, Thorp used card counting for his thesis and out came his book Beat the Dealer, but what were his main reasons? Did he think about blackjack and then thought that he might use it for his thesis, or was he thinking about a subject for his thesis and then thought about blackjack?

I would also like to know these answers about other people in the blackjack communitee. Maybe you can give me your motives Mr. Wong and Mr. Schlesinger, that would be highly appreciated.

Any other information or sources for information about the history of card counting would be very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Peter Woerde

...Journal of the American Statistical Association.

The article relates the output of four bored US Army enlisted men at Fort Aberdeen who did the first rigorous calculation of correct strategy and its expectation. Follow that with the late Alan Wilson's _Casino Gamblers' Guide_, which describes their work. Wilson's book is difficult to find (I bought mine new years ago), but may be findable in websites specializing in out of print books.

.

I am not sure what you meant when you said that Thorp used card-counting for his thesis.

Thorp got his Ph.D. from UCLA in 1958. He did his work on blackjack while at MIT. His first paper was presented to the AMS in 1960 "Fortune's Formula: A Winning Strategy for Blackjack" which was based upon counting 5s.

It may help if you understand a little about the times. Computers were in their infancy. They were slow, cumbersome, and scarce. There were only a few of them in the country, and only a few people knew how to program them. Everything you did required writing your own customized software.

BJ itself cried out for computer analysis. The mathematics of the game are basically straightforward. It rally only involves undergraduate-level probability theory. But the number of computations make it nearly intractable for humans. The Basic Strategy had been estimated by some engineers (Baldwin, et.al) using desk calculators. I believe it took them 8 months.

I am not sure why are asking about the motivation of people like Thorp, Wong, and Schlesinger. It doesn't seem to be the central focus of a math presentation?

...this course is called "The History of Mathematics" and therefore historical events and motivations for peoples choices are of more interest than the actual mathematics that have been used to compute basic and card counting strategies.

Peter Woerde

The motivation is pretty straight forward, like why do people climb mountains. The underlying precept may have been material gain too.

I think you'd be much better off speaking about the challenge this entailed as Mathprof mentioned. What is basically a very simple gaem required huge amounts of work by men of stellar intellects and creative minds. Start with the basic strategy work then go to Thorp. then wrap it up with what has been done in the past forty years, which is essentailly just refining what Thorp had done and making it more practical.

You might also mention that while the theory is fine what happens when it's applied, the consequences, can be either tragic or ridiculous. And Thorp did give some examples of what happened to him when he began. Sort of the clash between the theoretical world of higher mathematics with the rather dirty adn sordid world of "finance".

Although they both just recently passed away, no discussion of the history of card counting, and especially the computer-generated studies of the game, would be complete without mention of the legendary Julian Braun and John Gwynn, the two pioneers of modern-day computer studies of the game.

Peter Ruchman, of the GBC, wrote a spectacular tribute to Braun (and also to Allan Wilson) on his Web site. You should read it.

Finally, as for my own "evolution," please read my Preface to the first edition of BJA, which can be found on pp. xvii-xviii, now in the second edition, of my book.

Good luck with your course! If I can be of any further help, please let me know.

Don

www.bjmath.com. Click on "Feature Articles."