Basic strategy in blackjack just doesn't seem that hard to deduce. There are only 23 non-trivial possibilities for the player (hard 12 through hard 20, soft 17 through soft 20, double ace through double 10) and 10 starting possibilities for the dealer. For each of the dealer's possibilities, figure out the chance of each of the 5 possible outcomes (18, 19, 20, 21 or bust). Evaluate each of the player's possibilities for each of his choices (stick, twist, or split) starting with 20 and working down. The problem is of the dynamic programming genre: by working down from 20 you avoid a combinatorial explosion.
I'd say it could be done in a few hours by a bright teenager with no calculator. It's not the Manhattan project.
Of course, you can look at the work of Euclid or Euler or Pascal or Napier and say the same thing. The real genius lies in seeing that it can be done.
Moreover, Thorpe was a polymath genius. So I’m not sure these four horsemen were thst influential. He later went on to make a killing running one of the first true long/short hedge fund and pioneering a lot of modern portfolio management theory. Trust me, markets are a lot harder than blackjack and Ed Thorpe was definately up to the task.
I think the complexity is when say 2 aces have been played, how exactly does that affect your chances vs the dealer. Do that for every possible deal. I'm reading Ed Thorpe's autobiography right now and he goes into some detail about it, including how he used Fortran on punch cards to help him run simulations.
Yes, that's much more impressive, but that stuff wasn't worked out till Thorp. "Basic strategy" is the term for the correct way to play with an infinite deck, or equivalently, if you know nothing about the count.
I'd say it could be done in a few hours by a bright teenager with no calculator. It's not the Manhattan project.
Of course, you can look at the work of Euclid or Euler or Pascal or Napier and say the same thing. The real genius lies in seeing that it can be done.