about hi-lo indices ..

[Toxinity]

hi all !

i have a question about hi-lo indices, i'm following the "illustrious 18" don schlesinger indices, but in him book "blackjack attack 3rd edition", i have seen page 213 other indice (for 6-8-2 & 1 deck) on the table "the simulation indices - 10.1", so, can you tell me what are the mathematicaly perfect indices (i'm playing a 6D game, don"t hit S17, DD on any card, 3 split allowed) ?

And, i don"t understand, Why, in the situation 10 vs Ace or 11 Vs Ace we should double down whent count is high ? is it sure that Statistically we have more chance to win ?

thanks at all.

[SleightOfHand]

I18 for your rules are as follows

Ins = 3
12 v 2 = 3
12 v 3 = 2
12 v 4 = 0
12 v 5 = -2
12 v 6 = -1
13 v 2 = -1
13 v 3 = -2
16 v 10 = 0
16 v 9 = 5
15 v 10 = 4
9 v 2 = 1
9 v 7 = 3
10 v 10 = 4
10 v A = 4
11 v A = 1
XX v 6 = 4
XX v 5 = 5

PS: This is for truncated indexes.

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by Toxinity

hi all !

i have a question about hi-lo indices, i'm following the "illustrious 18" don schlesinger indices, but in him book "blackjack attack 3rd edition", i have seen page 213 other indice (for 6-8-2 & 1 deck) on the table "the simulation indices - 10.1", so, can you tell me what are the mathematicaly perfect indices (i'm playing a 6D game, don"t hit S17, DD on any card, 3 split allowed) ?

And, i don"t understand, Why, in the situation 10 vs Ace or 11 Vs Ace we should double down whent count is high ? is it sure that Statistically we have more chance to win ?

thanks at all.

"Mathematically perfect" is not a term we use with indexes since they are not calculated algorithmically. But, I believe the indexes in BJA Table 10.1 to be more accurate than those in the post by SleightOfHand. But then, I generated them.

And yes, we clearly have a better chance to win with 10vA and 11vA with a high count. Remember, with US rules, we know the dealer doesn't have a ten in the hole.

[SleightOfHand]

Originally Posted by QFIT

"Mathematically perfect" is not a term we use with indexes since they are not calculated algorithmically. But, I believe the indexes in BJA Table 10.1 to be more accurate than those in the post by SleightOfHand. But then, I generated them.

And yes, we clearly have a better chance to win with 10vA and 11vA with a high count. Remember, with US rules, we know the dealer doesn't have a ten in the hole.

I'm not sure, but what I did was take CVBJ and made a game with the rules he gave and popped the playing strategy for I18 open and just grabbed those numbers. Are they not as accurate?

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by SleightOfHand

I'm not sure, but what I did was take CVBJ and made a game with the rules he gave and popped the playing strategy for I18 open and just grabbed those numbers. Are they not as accurate?

They are out of ProBJ and not as accurate. The indexes in CVBJ are from the books in which the various strategies are found. I use the indexes out of the books because that's what people have learned and are used to. But they aren't always the best.

[jack,jackson]

QFIT or other. Do you have the link, to the value% of hands, at different TCs?

I wanted to see if 11vA, was more valuable than A5v4 @ TC+5, even though A5v4 is BS play and 11vsA is not.(Given the rules)

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by QFIT

the indexes in BJA Table 10.1....

Just so I understand CH 10 better, do I have it right that all the tables assume truncating a TC? So the "0" line in the tables has a freq and adv associated with a wide range like -0.99 to+0.99 would all be a TC of 0?

So, if so, does that mean the indexes in that table 10.1 would be calculated in the same way? like a -0.99 TC would still be a TC=0 for any departure or not? Maybe even the indexes were customized even including whether TC's were "half-deck" or "quarter-deck" estimation based on the game?

Obviously they are different than the I18 table indexes in that earlier chapter. I know that's for 4D. Are the differences more because of number of decks or maybe how the TC's were calculated - all that rounding, flooring, truncating stuff? I know Wong said he changed his assumption in later editions and increased all his neg indexes by 1. Do you know or care to guess what he changed from and to by any chance?

If I see a CVCX sim that says "CH 10 it" at the top, would that necessarily mean truncating was always assumed?

Not that it maybe makes much real difference but would the way to be as accurate as possible with indexes would be to generate them with the same assumptions as how your count is calced in the system you are using.

[QFIT]

BJA Chapter 10 assumes Flooring.

The original ProBJ assumed Rounding and changed to Truncating.