- Thread starter BetWise21
- Start date

BetWise21 said:

I’m mostly interested in 6 deck H17 das, but Ken Smiths cards have it as 3 for 6 deck S17 das and 2 deck H17 das. I’ve seen 4 and 5 as well.

Don

DSchles said:

This is a BS play, so indices of +3 .... make no sense at all, and would be clearly wrong.

xengrifter said:

Hey hey pssst - that's our sponsor!

Counting_Is_Fun said:

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Last edited:

DSchles said:

Not saying Ken is/was wrong. He rarely was. I do't have the cards. But the zero is for DAS, which makes sense, as splitting is BS for DD, DAS. Can't imagine that Ken didn't realize that.

.... But now I feel we must get to the bottom of this!

I just looked at the cards, and the 2D H17 index mentioned above is not as described by BetWise21.

To clarify, here are what my cards show for splitting 77v8 (DAS only in each case):

1 Deck H17 DAS index is -4.

1 Deck S17 DAS index is -5.

(These should be the same, yet they are not. I ran the calculations for each rule variation, even for occasions when S17 and H17 are identical. The fact that I got indexes that differ by 1 indicates this is a very close call between -4 and -5.)

2 Deck H17 DAS index is -1.

2 Deck S17 DAS index is -1.

6 Deck H17 DAS index is +3.

6 Deck S17 DAS index is +3.

So, with the exception of the small variation in 1-deck, I'll stick with these indexes. The difference between DonS' 2D index of 0 compared to my -1 is minimal, and could be a difference in methodology or assumptions.

I probably have some notes here somewhere about the exact methodology I used, but it will suffice to say that it was a long iterative process of fine-tuning indexes, and repeating until things stopped changing. I used Qfit's software to create them, and lots of hours.

If anyone is concerned about a difference here or there by a point (or sometimes even two!), they should spend some time generating indexes themselves. They'll soon see why published references often differ a little. Small assumptions can have unexpected impacts, and some decisions are simply very, very close. You really can just relax and use the numbers.

KenSmith said:

I just looked at the cards, and the 2D H17 index mentioned above is not as described by BetWise21.

To clarify, here are what my cards show for splitting 77v8 (DAS only in each case):

1 Deck H17 DAS index is -4.

1 Deck S17 DAS index is -5.

(These should be the same, yet they are not. I ran the calculations for each rule variation, even for occasions when S17 and H17 are identical. The fact that I got indexes that differ by 1 indicates this is a very close call between -4 and -5.)

2 Deck H17 DAS index is -1.

2 Deck S17 DAS index is -1.

6 Deck H17 DAS index is +3.

6 Deck S17 DAS index is +3.

So, with the exception of the small variation in 1-deck, I'll stick with these indexes. The difference between DonS' 2D index of 0 compared to my -1 is minimal, and could be a difference in methodology or assumptions.

I probably have some notes here somewhere about the exact methodology I used, but it will suffice to say that it was a long iterative process of fine-tuning indexes, and repeating until things stopped changing. I used Qfit's software to create them, and lots of hours.

If anyone is concerned about a difference here or there by a point (or sometimes even two!), they should spend some time generating indexes themselves. They'll soon see why published references often differ a little. Small assumptions can have unexpected impacts, and some decisions are simply very, very close. You really can just relax and use the numbers.

If you have the latest versions, try it yourself; it takes but a couple of minutes, and it would be nice to get your confirmation.

Don

DSchles said:

The only comment I have is that, if we both used Norm's software, we should have gotten the same results, since the only assumptions are clearly stated above, so long as you used flooring for the methodology

I'm unlikely to dust off a Windows machine to check it, but I'll consider it in February after my return from adventures in Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras.

I suppose it is possible that Norm made updates that could affect it, but that seems unlikely.

I appreciate the responses. I did misquote Mr. Smith's 2D card (typo). My only interest was Multi Deck DAS H17 and Smith's +3 and Wong's +5 index numbers, that's a difference of 2. I recently lost a 7, 7 split vs a dealer 8 with large bets out. It is an odd move to me because the larger the index the more tens, and one might think the result would approach a result of 17 and 17 losing to a dealer 18, but I suppose it's a defensive move like 8, 8 vs a high dealer up card. 14 vs 8 is not fun either. I am just trying to justify the index in my mind and commit to the one that makes the most sense to me. I believe both references are for floored conversions which it what I use.

Last edited:

BetWise21 said:

I recently lost a 7, 7 split vs a dealer 8 with large bets out. It is an odd move to me because the larger the index the more tens, and one might think the result would approach a result of 17 and 17 losing to a dealer 18, but I suppose it's a defensive move like 8, 8 vs a high dealer up card. 14 vs 8 is not fun either. I am just trying to justify the index in my mind and commit to the one that makes the most sense to me.

... You could split the difference and call it +4

... Or you could determine your own psychological comfort, and choose + 3 to get into the defensive move sooner, or it might be more personally comfortable for you to take the extreme defense move later at + 5

Either way, think of it as an unpleasant thing like pulling off a Band-Aid - personally I'd rather do it sooner than later.

Sure you will get those two hard 17s with max bets against dealer 18 - but on occasion you will also get two max bet double downs with high counts.

Ps- Don just called to remind everyone that this index has negligible instrumental value, and for a black Chip player using it will add about $0.25 per year to the bottom line.

Last edited: