QFIT
Well-Known Member
I put another 11MB of charts up on the web. This time, a bunch of index charts. http://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm
Index Chart Viewer
- Thread starter QFIT
- Start date
nightspirit
Well-Known Member
Interesting charts! One index I miss is Insurance. Do you also have a charts for the advantage per TC of this index?
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
:juggle: Awesome! :toast: :fish: :yikes: :bomb: :vomit: :celebrate :gun: :gaga: :violin:
nightspirit
Well-Known Member
golfnut101
Well-Known Member
H17
Do you plan on adding charts for other rules ? H17, etc. Great work regardless.
Do you plan on adding charts for other rules ? H17, etc. Great work regardless.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
Uston comparison
Out of interest I compared your index numbers with those from Ustons APC (pg. 112 MD Blackjack) and found your numbers in the 15, 16 vs. 7 and 8 to be close to one-half the Uston numbers. At first I thought I would have to apply a factor to all the Uston numbers because the TC was derived from full decks.
I found in most other areas of the chart you mirror Ustons numbers closely with some departure in the Soft Doubling a2-5 vs 3.
I are trying to get more accurate with these high counts and wonder if I should abandon the Uston indices I have long studied? If one could run sims on Uston would inaccuracies be ferreted out?
I find the 2x variances in the 14-16 vs. 7 and 8 area to be troubling.
I respect both you and Mr. Uston but find myself in a bit of a quandary here.
Out of interest I compared your index numbers with those from Ustons APC (pg. 112 MD Blackjack) and found your numbers in the 15, 16 vs. 7 and 8 to be close to one-half the Uston numbers. At first I thought I would have to apply a factor to all the Uston numbers because the TC was derived from full decks.
I found in most other areas of the chart you mirror Ustons numbers closely with some departure in the Soft Doubling a2-5 vs 3.
I are trying to get more accurate with these high counts and wonder if I should abandon the Uston indices I have long studied? If one could run sims on Uston would inaccuracies be ferreted out?
I find the 2x variances in the 14-16 vs. 7 and 8 area to be troubling.
I respect both you and Mr. Uston but find myself in a bit of a quandary here.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
Same as with - just ignore the Surrender indexes.
You must be the maker of the QFIT program I suppose, I don't know but:
I hate to belabor a point but I just do not see how the variables predominately in one area of the hit-stand index can vary so dramatically just by the adding or subtracting of a one point ace. It just does not make math sense to me when they very closely mimic the Uston numbers in practically all other areas of the indices.
If I had a sim generator and the knowledge to use it I would go ahead and get to the bottom of this.
Please do not take this as an attack of any kind, I just want to get clear here.
I hate to belabor a point but I just do not see how the variables predominately in one area of the hit-stand index can vary so dramatically just by the adding or subtracting of a one point ace. It just does not make math sense to me when they very closely mimic the Uston numbers in practically all other areas of the indices.
If I had a sim generator and the knowledge to use it I would go ahead and get to the bottom of this.
Please do not take this as an attack of any kind, I just want to get clear here.