Indices

R

ricopuno

Active Member
Hi,

I read a course offered by gamemasteronline and they suggested that we can memorize indexes that comes %54 of the time and he said that he and his students have tried this and it works I'm currently memorizing the full table index
by Stanford Wong.

My question is:
Should I memorize the full index or I can get away buy just memorizing indexes that are dealt %54 of the time?
 
The only index plays you have to memorize are the ones that pertain to the game you are targeting..But I think you should learn how to count first. Are these guys canon fodder or is it just me?

ricopuno said:
Hi,

I read a course offered by gamemasteronline and they suggested that we can memorize indexes that comes %54 of the time and he said that he and his students have tried this and it works I'm currently memorizing the full table index
by Stanford Wong.

My question is:
Should I memorize the full index or I can get away buy just memorizing indexes that are dealt %54 of the time?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply.....

I can count 2 decks for 58 sec. and 1 deck for 22 sec. and still practicing.

The game here in our local casino is 6 decks. What do you mean by Target Game?
 
I would like to modify Stanford's indices a little bit and I'm searching for a software that can give me the win/rate percentage of individual index.

Are there any software or formulas that I can use in order to figure out the win/rate percentage of each index?

Thanks for helping us all to learn and earn from card counting!!!!!!!
 
I have Stanford's book but he did not discuss how he got his index values.

Does anyone knows a formula we can use to figure out the index values?
 
Wong Provides and We Thrive

ricopuno said:
I have Stanford's book but he did not discuss how he got his index values.

Does anyone knows a formula we can use to figure out the index values?
Click to expand...

I think Wong in his book does talk about how he produced his indices. Look in the text with the indices at the back of the book.
 
blackjack avenger said:
I think Wong in his book does talk about how he produced his indices. Look in the text with the indices at the back of the book.
Click to expand...

He used sampling with replacement. This is more accurate than algebraic estimation but less accurate than targeted simulation.
 
MAZ said:
It figures these numbers come from Semyon's website, he can't even copy a chart accurately. Hey mdlbj, check with your boys over at BJI and tell me if they agree with some of the numbers on this chart. I bet they don't all match with the ones you were supposed to have learned at your seminar. Tsk, Tsk, when will you ever learn. Maybe you need a refresher course.
Click to expand...
MAZ, we need the correct #s - I already posted the link elswhere and too them on faith... from an MIT seminar graduate. zg
 
MAZ said:
It figures these numbers come from Semyon's website, he can't even copy a chart accurately. Hey mdlbj, check with your boys over at BJI and tell me if they agree with some of the numbers on this chart. I bet they don't all match with the ones you were supposed to have learned at your seminar. Tsk, Tsk, when will you ever learn. Maybe you need a refresher course.
Click to expand...

I would have posted them but it is Copyrighted. You can have the honor of posting them. You attended a seminar, share the love.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but numbers can not be copyrighted, just the presentation.

If it could I would like to be first in line to copyright 1 + 1 = 2. Seems to me I could collect a lot of royalties with that one.
 
cardcounter0 said:
Sorry, but numbers can not be copyrighted, just the presentation.

If it could I would like to be first in line to copyright 1 + 1 = 2. Seems to me I could collect a lot of royalties with that one.
Click to expand...

Not quite correct. Numbers that have been created by a purely algorithmic method cannot be copyrighted. I got permission from each author for the tables in CV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top