most important index's for play all

Meistro

Well-Known Member
#1
What are the most important index's for play all? Also how well does zen compare to hi-lo in negative counts?

Got myself a blackjack shoe in the mail today ;) too bad the decks haven't arrived yet!
 
#2
Meistro said:
What are the most important index's for play all? Also how well does zen compare to hi-lo in negative counts?

Got myself a blackjack shoe in the mail today ;) too bad the decks haven't arrived yet!
The Illustrious 18 are the most important indices, for anything. The surrender indices are important too, when applicable.

If you want to add a couple of indices for negative counts, DD 9 vs. 3 and 10 vs. 9 are good choices.
 

SleightOfHand

Well-Known Member
#3
Automatic Monkey said:
The Illustrious 18 are the most important indices, for anything. The surrender indices are important too, when applicable.

If you want to add a couple of indices for negative counts, DD 9 vs. 3 and 10 vs. 9 are good choices.
From what I recall, the I18 made the assumption that we wong out at TC -1. Althought I don't think that the plays would change too much, I agree with AMs double indexes. I may also consider some more H/S indexes i.e. 13v4,5,6.
 

matt21

Well-Known Member
#4
the ones that make the biggest difference are insurance, 16vT, 15vT - this make up 60% of the benefit to be gained from the I18. The next ones are T,T v5 and T,T v6 however might not be worth doing because of heat implications. Those 2 make up a further 10%. The remaining 13 index plays make up the remaining 30% of benefit.

On the page where i am getting the data (Blackjack Attack, p62) the lowest index play is for TC=-2. You got to remember that most of the negative index plays are not going to matter as much because you will be betting less.

hope that helps
 

daniel27

Well-Known Member
#5
Automatic Monkey said:
The Illustrious 18 are the most important indices, for anything. The surrender indices are important too, when applicable.

If you want to add a couple of indices for negative counts, DD 9 vs. 3 and 10 vs. 9 are good choices.
I thought I18 was for HiLo , :confused:
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#8
because sometimes less is more

daddybo said:
if your going to play all.. then learn all. Don't be lazy. :)
well, lol, just me maybe, i didn't exactly decide to start card counting cause i wanted to work hard, really i wanted an easy way to get money with out working hard.

thing is with all these indices, that's just more complexity, more chances for error.
better for some of us i think, the KISS philosophy.:rolleyes:
my vote is for the I18 & Fab4 and maybe use some intuition after having studied the other indices, but not necessarily having committed them to memory (for the ones other than I18 & Fab4).
 
Last edited:

21forme

Well-Known Member
#9
daniel27 said:
I thought I18 was for HiLo , :confused:
The index values may be different for a different count, but the plays themselves are the ones that have the most effect on your EV based on hand frequency, bet values, etc.
 

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#10
daddybo said:
if your going to play all.. then learn all. Don't be lazy. :)
I agree if your going to play all then you should know more then the I18 and Fab 4. For my local shoe games I limited my range to all indices between TC's -6 thru TC +6 (lvl 2). Hitting a TC outside of that range is so rare I'd probably forget the index before using it even once. Thats already 90 indices for a 6d or 8d, ls, das, game.

This is just a guestimate but in DD I would extend the range to -8 thru +8 since using my strategy the TC distribution outside of that range only occurs ~ 3.7% of the time.

JMO

BJC
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#11
bjcount said:
I agree if your going to play all then you should know more then the I18 and Fab 4. For my local shoe games I limited my range to all indices between TC's -6 thru TC +6 (lvl 2). Hitting a TC outside of that range is so rare I'd probably forget the index before using it even once. Thats already 90 indices for a 6d or 8d, ls, das, game.

This is just a guestimate but in DD I would extend the range to -8 thru +8 since using my strategy the TC distribution outside of that range only occurs ~ 3.7% of the time.

JMO

BJC
If you are using a level 2 count as you suggust, then learning indices thru +6 is not nearly enough. 3 of the most important 5 plays are outside this range.
(stand 15 vs X, split xx vs 6, split xx vs 5) The most important play, Insurance is probably a hair outside this range as well as it is technically +3.1 for 6 & 8 deck games using hi-lo, so for a level 2 count should be right around +6, maybe slightly higher.
 

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#12
kewljason said:
If you are using a level 2 count as you suggust, then learning indices thru +6 is not nearly enough. 3 of the most important 5 plays are outside this range.
(stand 15 vs X, split xx vs 6, split xx vs 5) The most important play, Insurance is probably a hair outside this range as well as it is technically +3.1 for 6 & 8 deck games using hi-lo, so for a level 2 count should be right around +6, maybe slightly higher.
Kewl J

Good points, but all are still in my range. (using 1/2dtc - RPC, not 1dtc -ZEN)
Insurance is TC+3.
15 vs x is S@ 4
xx vs 5 or 6 is P@ 4

As I said, the range is based on my count. Using CVData or CVCX you can easily determine what range of TC's would be best for a particular playing strategy.

BJC

EDIT: I have these for ZEN which would follow your comments
(RA)insurance for zen (1dtc) is 5
xx vs 5 = 8
xx vs 6 = 7
15 vs x = 5
 
Last edited:

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#13
bjcount said:
Kewl J

Good points, but all are still in my range. (using 1/2dtc - RPC, not 1dtc -ZEN)
Insurance is TC+3.
15 vs x is S@ 4
xx vs 5 or 6 is P@ 4

As I said, the range is based on my count. Using CVData or CVCX you can easily determine what range of TC's would be best for a particular playing strategy.

BJC

EDIT: I have these for ZEN which would follow your comments
(RA)insurance for zen (1dtc) is 5
xx vs 5 = 8
xx vs 6 = 7
15 vs x = 5
Didn't realize you were using 1/2 tc. That makes much more sense then. All of the Ill18 + more should fall in to your range then, except possibly a RA index for splitting XX vs 5 and 6, if you were inclined to use such.
 

daddybo

Well-Known Member
#14
sagefr0g said:
well, lol, just me maybe, i didn't exactly decide to start card counting cause i wanted to work hard, really i wanted an easy way to get money with out working hard.

thing is with all these indices, that's just more complexity, more chances for error.
better for some of us i think, the KISS philosophy.:rolleyes:
my vote is for the I18 & Fab4 and maybe use some intuition after having studied the other indices, but not necessarily having committed them to memory (for the ones other than I18 & Fab4).
Wow, I bet you're dissapointed! Nothing worthwhile is easy. :laugh:
I really don't understatnd why folks think learning a lot of indices is that hard. Although, I do understand why a casual/occasional player might not want to invest the time. But, then again, casual or not it's still your money!
 
Last edited:

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#15
kewljason said:
Didn't realize you were using 1/2 tc. That makes much more sense then. All of the Ill18 + more should fall in to your range then, except possibly a RA index for splitting XX vs 5 and 6, if you were inclined to use such.
Actually the ones I posted above are RA indices which still fall in the range.

For DD the indices for xx vs 4 is TC+7
xx vs5 or 6 is TC+5

BJC
 
Top