I've been working on a program to calculate the gains from perfect playing and insurance strategy at a given depth.
I've been cross-checking my insurance results with the table in chapter 6 of The Theory of Blackjack, and found some slight discrepancies. It may be that I have an error in my code, or it may be just an issue of rounding.
(The TOBJ table gives figures in 1/100ths of a %; most are integers, but some are to one decimal place, which would seem to imply that the integer ones are accurate to the same level, but with the trailing '.0' omitted for brevity. But maybe not? )
At any rate, does anybody have access to an alternative source for these figures, ideally to more decimal places, so that I can know for sure when I have got my program producing the right answers?
So far, what I have seen is -
The first three of the above would be correct if rounded to 1dp, but I would expect the fourth to be shown as 6.3 in TOBJ if my figure was correct, suggesting I may have an error.
*The last figure definitely implies a problem. However, I got it via some hasty, manual calculations after I discovered that I get an integer overflow within my code at that level. So I can't rely on this figure until I sort that issue out; I may have screwed something up.
Thanks,
I've been cross-checking my insurance results with the table in chapter 6 of The Theory of Blackjack, and found some slight discrepancies. It may be that I have an error in my code, or it may be just an issue of rounding.
(The TOBJ table gives figures in 1/100ths of a %; most are integers, but some are to one decimal place, which would seem to imply that the integer ones are accurate to the same level, but with the trailing '.0' omitted for brevity. But maybe not? )
At any rate, does anybody have access to an alternative source for these figures, ideally to more decimal places, so that I can know for sure when I have got my program producing the right answers?
So far, what I have seen is -
Code:
[B]Single deck:[/B]
[B]Cards Left TOBJ Me[/B]
47 1.7 1.7146
46 2.3 2.31098
44 4 3.99169
41 6 6.33756
29 17 15.66681[B]*[/B]
*The last figure definitely implies a problem. However, I got it via some hasty, manual calculations after I discovered that I get an integer overflow within my code at that level. So I can't rely on this figure until I sort that issue out; I may have screwed something up.
Thanks,