John A. Nairn false claims about first to calculate split evs for finite decks

MGP

Well-Known Member
#1
J. A. Nairn Publications (orst.edu)

Does anyone know this guy? He's claiming in his paper:

[1909.13710] Exact Calculation of Expected Values for Splitting Pairs in Blackjack (arxiv.org)

That he is the first person to get exact split EVs for finite deck splits which is patently false. It's bad enough he did it once but then he re-claimed it by posting it on arxiv's in 2019.

I just ran across his blackjack article when I was looking for old posts of mine since I'm helping someone through the calcs, where he claims to be the first person to calculate EVs for splits exactly despite the fact that Cacarulo and I were 100% the first people who did it in 2002, Don published Cacarulo's values in BJA3 shortly after, and I helped Stuart Ethier work out his splits chapter in 2007 in the Doctrine of Chances. My CA was also being shared around in 2006 which is probably how he confirmed his numbers if not from Don's book. A bunch of people then duplicated Cacarulo and my work well before his paper.

I had posted the methodology on the old BJ Math site. Don? Norm? Cacarulo? Do any of you know him and did he have a pseudonym at the time? I'm trying to get information before I contact him directly and if he doesn't retract it I'll be contacting arxiv's and his department chair.

His description of the "zero-memory" and "recursive" method remind me a lot of T Hopper who used our numbers to confirm his split calcs. T Hopper, do you know this person?

John, if you see this please contact me and confirm that you will retract your claim and cite sources appropriately.

MGP
 
Last edited:

MGP

Well-Known Member
#3
They match up to 4-5 decimal places - not the 16 that Cacarulo and I matched with brute-force numbers. The thing is though that he would have no way of knowing his values are exact without a reference. You can't just make a claim and not support it by brute force, which Cacarulo and I did. Ken Smith was kind enough to confirm with his brute force calculator. But if you're using a different bit processor there _may_ be differences that are not actually errors even though there shouldn't be. he has really weird strategy exceptions that are wrong though so that could explain some of the difference. I have to force the strategy to match his mistakes and see if that brings the numbers into better alignment.

Yes he cites Griffin but Griffin used an approximation.

Also it's good to note that Mike Shackelford actually had the exact values for infinite decks before we had them for finite decks. So that helped us confirm our numbers as well.
 

MGP

Well-Known Member
#4
So T Hopper doesn't know him so he didn't copy from him, and digging in he didn't get it right anyways. He's really close but not exact. Thanks.
 
Top