Scarne rep Blackjack
Is he in disrepute as a mathematician and gambling expert? Or still considered an authoritative source
Apparently he believed card counting didn't work and tried to prove it but was unsuccessful.
Does this one gaff on his part make all his work worthless?
I'm looking into something Scarne wrote but if the general consensus is his math and analysis was overly faulty I won't waste my time
. I don't know but he was publishing into the sixties I believe.Quote: ChumpChangeHe was a big name back in the day but what were the rules of blackjack in Vegas in 1947?
He challenged Thorp directly in a card counting challenge but Thorp refused since Scarne insisted he deal. Scarne was recognized as a card manipulator so Thorpe was wisely hesitant to allow him a dealing position in a wager
All I know is Scarne claimed to have developed a winning BJ formula and that it was distributed to millions of GIs overseas. I've never seen a copy and last I heard one had never turned up. Perhaps that has changed over the years.
Scarne came up with his strategy before there were computers capable of simulating tens of thousands of games so he seems to have been wrong on some fairly close decisions.
I'd say he was self-promoter first, an entertainer second, and a gambling expert third.
Quote: darkozI was wondering what the general consensus was especially here amongst mathematicians about John Scarne.
Is he in disrepute as a mathematician and gambling expert? Or still considered an authoritative source
Apparently he believed card counting didn't work and tried to prove it but was unsuccessful.
Does this one gaff on his part make all his work worthless?
I'm looking into something Scarne wrote but if the general consensus is his math and analysis was overly faulty I won't waste my time
Since you asked:
https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/people-in-gambling-two/
Quote: darkozI was wondering what the general consensus was especially here amongst mathematicians about John Scarne.
Is he in disrepute as a mathematician and gambling expert? Or still considered an authoritative source
Apparently he believed card counting didn't work and tried to prove it but was unsuccessful.
Does this one gaff on his part make all his work worthless?
I'm looking into something Scarne wrote but if the general consensus is his math and analysis was overly faulty I won't waste my time
Scarne’s blackjack strategy is wrong as were many others from the 40s and 50s but he never updated his once correct basic strategy was known.
Quote: HunterhillScarne’s blackjack strategy is wrong as were many others from the 40s and 50s but he never updated his once correct basic strategy was known.
Here's the thing: Scarne did his magic tricks, analyzed casino games (many correctly), wrote about general math, studied games outside of the casinos (such as literal carnival games) to see in what ways they were gaffed or could be gaffed, did the math and came up for strategies for non-gambling card games...etc.
In other words, he did a lot!
Thorp was a Blackjack card counter and wrote about that. He was one of the first widely-known ones, if not the first.
So, Scarne does this sort of stuff in more general terms and he was proven wrong in one of his assertions by a specialist. I'd like to think that being wrong about one thing doesn't invalidate a lifetime of work----especially not in anything math-related! Math is either correct or it is incorrect. You miss one sometimes.
Quote: Mission146Here's the thing: Scarne did his magic tricks, analyzed casino games (many correctly), wrote about general math, studied games outside of the casinos (such as literal carnival games) to see in what ways they were gaffed or could be gaffed, did the math and came up for strategies for non-gambling card games...etc.
In other words, he did a lot!
Thorp was a Blackjack card counter and wrote about that. He was one of the first widely-known ones, if not the first.
So, Scarne does this sort of stuff in more general terms and he was proven wrong in one of his assertions by a specialist. I'd like to think that being wrong about one thing doesn't invalidate a lifetime of work----especially not in anything math-related! Math is either correct or it is incorrect. You miss one sometimes.
This is a good point!
Scarne supposedly dug in his heels though.
When Einstein came out with his theory of relativity he was refuted by a number of scientists. However when certain proofs made it evident those scientists admitted they were wrong and he was right.
Scarne seems to have done himself a disservice by refuting card counting even with evidence presented.
Quote: darkozThis is a good point!
Scarne supposedly dug in his heels though.
When Einstein came out with his theory of relativity he was refuted by a number of scientists. However when certain proofs made it evident those scientists admitted they were wrong and he was right.
Scarne seems to have done himself a disservice by refuting card counting even with evidence presented.
Thanks for saying so! I think you might like my article if you haven't read it.
He did dig in his heels and was astoundingly wrong. He'll hardly be the first person who was ever erroneously convinced of the rightness of his own positions.
Think about it this way: At the time, card counting was a relatively new concept. As mentioned, Thorp was one of the first people to become a well-known card counter (if not the first) and write about it. On the other hand, gambling systems have existed probably since gambling. Scarne probably thought of card counting as a sort of gambling system, so he set about trying to disprove it from the position that it was absolutely untrue.
Anyway, that's the sort of thing that's going to happen sometimes when you investigate a question already being firmly on one side or the other. You make omissions or outright mistakes. You fail to be objective. Well, now you have to defend what you have done---lots of people double down in that situation. The brain is all but hard-wired not to want to be wrong about stuff, psyche tends not to like that, especially when, like Scarne, you're considered an expert in the field.
I tend to think that's basically what happened. He either did not reinvestigate the question of deck composition thoroughly enough, or he simply couldn't bring himself to admit that he was massively wrong about something math-related.
Either way, still doesn't discredit everything he ever did.
I have read most of Scarne’s books he had a very interesting life and I agree with you that much of his work was very good and his anecdotes were very enjoyable.Quote: Mission146Thanks for saying so! I think you might like my article if you haven't read it.
He did dig in his heels and was astoundingly wrong. He'll hardly be the first person who was ever erroneously convinced of the rightness of his own positions.
Think about it this way: At the time, card counting was a relatively new concept. As mentioned, Thorp was one of the first people to become a well-known card counter (if not the first) and write about it. On the other hand, gambling systems have existed probably since gambling. Scarne probably thought of card counting as a sort of gambling system, so he set about trying to disprove it from the position that it was absolutely untrue.
Anyway, that's the sort of thing that's going to happen sometimes when you investigate a question already being firmly on one side or the other. You make omissions or outright mistakes. You fail to be objective. Well, now you have to defend what you have done---lots of people double down in that situation. The brain is all but hard-wired not to want to be wrong about stuff, psyche tends not to like that, especially when, like Scarne, you're considered an expert in the field.
I tend to think that's basically what happened. He either did not reinvestigate the question of deck composition thoroughly enough, or he simply couldn't bring himself to admit that he was massively wrong about something math-related.
Either way, still doesn't discredit everything he ever did.
I had a friend who was taught card mechanics by Scarne and he had many great stories about him.
Quote: mosesInteresting thread. Id like to learn more about deck compositions.
Ha!
If I could go back in time, perhaps I’d be able to get the rudiments down to Scarne if he was willing to listen to me.
As far as you go, there’s nothing I could teach you about Blackjack that you don’t know already.
IMDB mentions this in the trivia section:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159382/trivia
Quote: KeeneoneI watched the movie, Croupier (British 1998), last night on Netflix. The protagonist, played by Clive Owen, was buying Scarne On Cards in a bookstore in one scene. Book can be seen @ 53:10 on NF. Funny/weird that a thread would start and I would see Scarne's name in the movie.
IMDB mentions this in the trivia section:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159382/trivia
It's all part of the matrix.
Quote: Mission146Ha!
If I could go back in time, perhaps I’d be able to get the rudiments down to Scarne if he was willing to listen to me.
As far as you go, there’s nothing I could teach you about Blackjack that you don’t know already.
Thanks M. Thorp was about Ratio of what has been played vs what still remains to be played. Very effective with deep pen.
Griffin seemed to revolutionize card counting primarily with his theory on Effect of Removal. Many books were published and stategies developed off his theory.
Then Don S came along and simplified it all when he developed SCORE.
Form all the books written, we can all agree the 8 is neutral. Im not seeing the value of the 2 either. A neutral 2 would have minimized theories a good bit. One could make a case for the 6 being closer to the EorR of the 5.
If this is too much. It's okay to delete. No harm. No foul.
Quote: billryanIt's all part of the matrix.
Deja Vu
The Algorithm
Apophenia most likely:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
I can't wait to use that in a sentence.
Quote: billryanApopthany.
I can't wait to use that in a sentence.
You want the thoup or the thalad?
Hmmm. I believe I'll have thoup.😨
Would you rather have apopthany beer?
No. Beer is fine.
Was there more than one deck even offered in the 50's and 60's?
When was the double deck game offered in casino play?
multi deck?
But he was happiest when inventing (and marketing, through his company John Scarne Games, Inc.) new games, which he did quite a bit. And he was especially proud of one called Teeko, which he invented in 1945 (version withdrawn), re-invented in 1952 and modified in the 1960s. I'm a proud owner a copy of Teeko, which I understand is hard to find. He was so proud of the game that he named his son John Teeko Scarne.
Teeko quickly spread around the world. Even Orson Welles was reported to have been playing Teeko. But he never made a profit on the game mainly due to water damage in the warehouse which eliminated the entire stock in one day. Today Teeko is virtually unknown.
I also own a hardbound copy of his 1966 autobiography, "The Odds Against Me." It's a good read.
Quote: mosesThe first scientific and mathematically sound attempt to devise an optimal blackjack playing strategy was revealed in September 1956. Roger Baldwin, Wilbert Cantey, Herbert Maisel and James McDermott published a paper titled The Optimum Strategy in Blackjack in the Journal of the American Statistical Association.[10] This paper would become the foundation of future sound efforts to beat the game of blackjack. Ed Thorp would use Baldwin's hand calculations to verify the basic strategy and later publish (in 1963) his famous book Beat the Dealer.
Was there more than one deck even offered in the 50's and 60's?
When was the double deck game offered in casino play?
multi deck?
Roger Baldwin recently passed away he was the last of the group still living.
I had the pleasure of meeting him and two others back in 2009. Baldwin made occasional trips to Foxwoods.
How many of you would sit down at a table Scarne was dealing at? Do you think the greatest mechanic of all time might have taught his casino buddies a few tricks they passed on to their dealers?
Some of these guys from back in the day, Scarne, Revere, a few other seem to have that look of the old riverboat /wild west gambler, where the line between advantage play and cheating may have gotten blurred. I take pride in keeping that line distinct.
Quote: billryanAm I the only one bothered by one guy being damned for supposedly using some technique to cheat by seeing people's hole cards and the other guy is being praised for being the best mechanic of all time?
How many of you would sit down at a table Scarne was dealing at? Do you think the greatest mechanic of all time might have taught his casino buddies a few tricks they passed on to their dealers?
I doubt it. I tend to think he was mostly, if not entirely, about fair play. Many of his published works had to with publicly exposing how various operations (such as carnivals) gaffed their games as well as how card games could be gaffed. One of the early experiences that got him into that was kids in the army getting cheated at poker.
Besides, he died in 1985 and isn't here to defend himself, obviously. I guess my point is that there's no evidence that he was about anything except fair play. Is it possible that he violated that? Anything is possible.
He was the authority on the gamut of gambling for decades. I read one of his books as a kid and I'm sure it influenced my choices that led me here. I have a lot of respect for his work, but there is no reason to buy his books today unless you have a strong interest in gambling history. Perhaps the same will be said of me long after I'm gone.
