Here is what the publisher has to say about the product:
Don Schlesinger's Ultimate Blackjack Strategy Cards feature Don's easy-to-use basic strategy and his new, cutting-edge ultimate strategy for use with either casino or online play. Each 3.5" by 5" tri-fold card contains four charts of the most scientifically advanced blackjack strategies available to the traditional player.
Don Schlesinger's Ultimate Blackjack Strategy Cards feature Don's easy-to-use basic strategy and his new, cutting-edge ultimate strategy for use with either casino or online play.
It is a good thing that Don ran the sims to verify that these strategy cards were accurate and that the play is not losing 0.004% of something because of an inaccurate play such as A,3 v 4.
Same comments hold for Bob Dancer.
Math Boy
Actually - they're not based on sim - they are based on exact CA analysis by Cacarulo.
Actually - they're not based on sim - they are based on exact CA analysis by Cacarulo.
You mean that Don did none of the work for "Ultimate Blackjack Strategy Cards by Don Schlesinger"? If Cacarulo did the work, then why is Don's name on the cards? Why not even "Don S presents Ultimate Blakjack Strategy Cards by Cacarulo"?
Math Boy
Don is the guy with the book and the high profile, whereas Cacarulo is just a genius who largely keeps himself to himself.
On the same matter, I have never really understood why Braun or Auston never wanted a much higher profile for their considerable contributions to Thorp and Schlesinger's work. Similarly, Uston had almost nothing to do with the creation of his eponymous counts.
is your problem? Sam Case ran the numbers for UstonSS and Arnold's books. Braun ran the numbers for Hi-Opt. Why do you keep kicking Don? What is your agendum?
I wonder if you could briefly explain what Cac has done here for the �new cutting-edge� BS.
The comprehensive BS was worked out by Peter Griffin, and has appeared in ToBJ for many years.
Three was one error that was found in the late 90s. I believe it was found by Steve Jacobs.
Has Cac. Had found additional errors? If this has been posted in depth somewhere, you can just point me there and I will read it.
I hope this doe not sound negative in any way toward Cac. He is the CA person I know. I just didn�t think there was anything new or �cutting-edge� about BS?
PS: There is an idea of Risk Averse Basic Strategy and Counters Basic Strategy. There is also BS with a cut-card effect. I didn�t think t think that is what we are talking about here?
I have nothing to do with them. But, Viktor handed me a set on a visit to LV and I just looked at them. The cards include C-D plays and specific rule based plays by decks. Would I buy them? Of course not as I don't play BS. But, if you aren't going to count; why not play the game correctly? Besides, most BJ books have errors in their tables including those by someone currently trashing a competitor:)
What...is your problem? Sam Case ran the numbers for UstonSS and Arnold's books. Braun ran the numbers for Hi-Opt. Why do you keep kicking Don? What is your agendum?
I "keep" kicking Don? Please refer to one post before this one where I was critical of Don.
The difference is that Uston and Arnold wrote books. There is a big difference between writing a book with someone whi did a lot of the computer work, and presenting the output of a sim as a product by itself and putting your name on it although you did none of the work. There is zero reason for putting Don's name on it except as a strategy to sell more BS cards. If Don put BS strategies in his book which he did not derive, I could care less. In fact, most people do this and I have never mentioned it before.
Wong and Grosjean are the only authors who come to mind who probably did all of the computer work in their books.
Same thing goes for the "Dancer" strategy cards. His name is on them just to sell more cards.
Math Boy
that many have made before. You assume that a strategy is merely a mathematic exercise. How many different index tables exist for the HiLo tags? Numerous, they are all different, and that does not mean that any of them is 'wrong.'
basic strategy cards, or his basic strategy engine? Thanks.
I have a set of the new Schlesinger/Cacarulo cards, though I haven't checked to see if they and I agree. If there's a difference, the cards are almost certainly right. (Gasp!) The cards also include the composition-dependent variations in strategy.
As it stands, I am already aware of a couple of errors on the Basic Strategy Engine that I haven't yet fixed. The first is the advice on splitting 8s vs Ten and Ace in a OBBO game (Original and Busted Bets Only, Australian style). The Engine says don't, but the correct play is to split. My original work didn't do anything but US hole card rules, so the ENHC and OBBO options were added later using published info that apparently wasn't always accurate.
Here's a quirky one that I've known about for a while. For games with surrender, I should change the 16vT play to Surrender/Stand. It's now Surrender/Hit, as you would expect. With surrender available, you should surrender the original-two-card 16s. Any 16 you can't surrender is a multiple-card 16, and the correct basic strategy would be stand.
The main reason I haven't changed that one already is that I know I'd get tons of mail asking about it. When I change it, I'll have to add a whole section explaining the change, and why my chart is the only one anywhere that says to stand with 16vT.
An enhanced Strategy Engine is on the way, with these corrections plus a few really neat features. I've been working on it between other projects, but hope to be done soon.
They are mainly composition dependent differences I believe. The first I believe arose from my questioning of how one calculates total dependent strategy since I didn't like the initial answers I was getting (http://www.bjmath.com/bin-cgi/bjcomputer.pl?noframes;read=1448). The example is that if surrender is available - then all 2 card 16's are surrendered vs 10 - so they should not be included in the remaining 16 vs 10 strategy and therefore only 3-card or more hands should determine the strategy. Luckily Cacarulo was quick to calculate that taking this into consideration the strategy for 16 vs 10 if surrender is available is Stand and not hit. (My first go at my ca was making mistakes but as always Cacarulo thankfully was on the ball). Cacarulo and Don then took it further and basically added some post-split and and 3-card exceptions to the strategy so if the cards reflect the strategy in the book - then they are not just total dependent but partly composition dependent.
Hi Ken,
Don't forget the other errors I emailed you a long time ago including the OBBO ones and ENHC split errors. I probably still have the email in case you need me to resend it.
MGP
In the email I found from you, I see OBBO 88 and 16vT Rs as described in my post. I also see 1D ES 88vT should be split.
I don't have any corrections to ENHC, so check your emails and send along anything you find.
Thanks!
Oops - you're right I meant ES - sorry about that. I also noticed I didn't specify the OBBO 8,8 issue so I copied my response from a post below:
OBBO - Split 8,8 vs BOTH 10 and A
BBO - Split 8,8 vs 10 Only
Always resplit
I believe BBO (Busted bets plus one) is the way the casinoes actually implement the rule in Australia - but I've never played there - others can confirm.
I also mentioned that you can't do anything further with a split that's surrendered so there's no need for further strategy options on pairs if surrender is the strategy.
Thanks,
MGP
You make the mistake ...that many have made before. You assume that a strategy is merely a mathematic exercise. How many different index tables exist for the HiLo tags? Numerous, they are all different, and that does not mean that any of them is 'wrong.'
Your incorrect assumption is not even germane to this discussion.
What did Don have to do with the generation of the BS tables? Nothing. But his name is used to sell them.
Math Boy
Your first post and last post on this subject both contain assumptions. Seems to be popular this month. Trashing things without looking at them.
How do you know?...Your first post and last post on this subject both contain assumptions. Seems to be popular this month. Trashing things without looking at them.
I note that you did not contradict the fact that Don had nothing to do with the sims. I was 'around' where the sims were discussed by cacurulo and MGP and such. So I know because I was there. Look at the permissions page where these were initially discussed and you will see my name there.
Now I see how all those threads by T-Man and yourself hit the right side of the page. You keep on making poor assumptions while accusing someone else of doing the same.
You can have the last word here. I have stated my point and you have not given one bit of evidence to contradict it. Instead you try to deflect the main point that Don is putting his name on a product developed by another person. Akin to selling a product named "Don S.'s Casino Verite". What I would like to see is cacurulo stating that Don had an integral part in the sims developing the basic strategy. If he does this, I'll admit that I am wrong.
Math Boy
I know absolutely nothing about the process behind the cards except that Cac did the runs. I don't know who selected the C-D hands, who created the format, who wrote the lengthy documentation discussing bankroll, rules, etc. And I don't trash products based on assumptions.
