Double Down

In your Letters column of April 23, reader Brendan Powers faults Michael Hiltzik for not mentioning John Scarne in his March 12 article (“Counters Culture”) and alludes to Scarne’s disbelief in modern blackjack theory. I know of no blackjack experts who take Scarne seriously. He used pidgin arithmetic to arrive at an error-riddled strategy. By contrast, I used mathematics and computers to discover modern blackjack strategy, which has been verified and refined by scores of scientists.

For example, here’s one Scarne theory that will cost you 14%: When the dealer’s up-card is an ace, you should stand on hard 16 or more. The correct play is to hit hard 16 but stand on hard 17 or more. Test it yourself. Give the dealer an ace up and a non-10 down, and give yourself a hard 16. Try each deal both ways--stand on 16 or hit 16--and keep score. The correct strategy should be well ahead within a few hundred hands.

What of Scarne’s “$100,000 challenge”? Scarne and I were invited to appear on TV by David Susskind. When Scarne learned shortly before the program that I would be showing up, he canceled abruptly. Later, he “challenged” experts Julian Braun, Allan Wilson and Lawrence Revere, who, with John Luckman, owner of the Gambler’s Book Store in Las Vegas, had tried for months to set up a confrontation, only to be met with alibis.

Anyone really challenging to modern blackjack theory will be besieged by members of the card-counting community--takers offering millions of dollars.

Edward O. Thorpe

Newport Beach