The movie '21' is the story of MIT students who 'count cards' to improve their probability of winning the card game Blackjack at casinos.Not surprisingly, this movie has a lot of mathematics in it. Most obvious is the 'counting of the cards', which is based on the techniques published in Edward O. Thorpe's 1962 book 'Beat the Dealer'.
wizardofoddz21
- During an advanced math class, Prof. Micky Rosa, played by Kevin Spacey, challenges Campbell with the Monty Hall problem, which Campbell solves successfully. Rosa invites Campbell to join his blackjack team led by Rosa, which consists of young men Choi and Fisher, and women Jill Taylor, played by Kate Bosworth, and Kianna.
- 21 is a 2008 American heist drama film directed by Robert Luketic and starring Jim Sturgess, Kevin Spacey, Laurence Fishburne, Kate Bosworth, Liza Lapira, Jacob Pitts, Aaron Yoo, and Kieu Chinh. The film is inspired by the true story of the MIT Blackjack Team as told in Bringing Down the House, the best-selling book by Ben Mezrich.
I've been searching for sometime via google and on this site, and I can't find the answer to my question:
When playing blackjack, and the dealer is showing an ace, does buying insurance follow the normal method of calculating the true count based on all cards known? Or, does it follow the rules of the Monty Hall paradox, i.e., ignore the cards that just came out and calculate the true count based on the running count PRIOR to all player(s) hands being dealt?
Mathematics shouldn't be an issue here, as I'm only asking as to whether the Monty Hall problem is applicable in this situation.
THANKS!
When playing blackjack, and the dealer is showing an ace, does buying insurance follow the normal method of calculating the true count based on all cards known? Or, does it follow the rules of the Monty Hall paradox, i.e., ignore the cards that just came out and calculate the true count based on the running count PRIOR to all player(s) hands being dealt?
Mathematics shouldn't be an issue here, as I'm only asking as to whether the Monty Hall problem is applicable in this situation.
THANKS!
Canyonero
Welcome to the forums!
When making a perfect decision in the mathematical sense, you must use all the information available at the point of decision, i.e. the dealt cards must be taken into account. So your first assumption is correct.
Monty Hall doesn't apply to this, and I don't follow your logic here how it might apply. (Side note: Better refer to it as the 'Monty Hall Problem', since it isn't a paradox at all, just logic.)
When making a perfect decision in the mathematical sense, you must use all the information available at the point of decision, i.e. the dealt cards must be taken into account. So your first assumption is correct.
Monty Hall doesn't apply to this, and I don't follow your logic here how it might apply. (Side note: Better refer to it as the 'Monty Hall Problem', since it isn't a paradox at all, just logic.)
rdw4potus
The only way this is really like the Monte Hall problem is that the cards on the table affect the count, like the non-winning door affects the Monte Hall problem.
Without the cards on the table, the count is X. With them, the count is Y. Maybe X dictates that insurance should be taken, while Y does not.
But I'm not sure why it would ever be a good idea to ignore available information (the cards on the table) when making this decision.
'So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened.' - Maurice Clarett
MathExtremist
Monty Hall 21 Blackjack
The Monte Hall problem actually does take newly-revealed information into account (where the goat is), so your analogy is inaccurate. Regardless, if you're counting cards, the more information you have, the more accurate your count will be. Ignoring any information will make your assessment of the count less accurate.'In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice.' -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Doc
The Monte Hall problem involves someone (Monte) who has additional information that is unknown to you and who offers you an opportunity to revise a decision. It does not apply at all to a blackjack insurance decision, whether you are counting or not.
wizardofoddz21
I expected this to be the answer to my question, but I wanted to be 100% sure. Thanks all! :)
MangoJ
The Monte Hall problem involves someone (Monte) who has additional information that is unknown to you and who offers you an opportunity to revise a decision.
The very essence of Monte Hall problem is not the allowed revision of a decision. The essence of the problem is, that Monte's action are not independent of your own choices, and thus two seemingly identical decisions are in fact quite different.
Hunterhill
I expected this to be the answer to my question, but I wanted to be 100% sure. Thanks all! :)
I think you should change your name.Don't teach an alligator how to swim.