beyond the illustrious 18

[Meistro]

What are the next say 10-20 most important index plays beyond the illustrious 18? For a S17, DAS, DA2, No Surrendors, 8 deck game w/ 75-85% pen.

 

[kewljason]

What are the next say 10-20 most important index plays beyond the illustrious 18? For a S17, DAS, DA2, No Surrendors, 8 deck game w/ 75-85% pen.

I would say doubling 8 vs 5,6, doubling A8 vs 5,6 (some versions of Ill18 already have these replacing the neg indices) doubling A8 vs 4, then some of the higher index number plays because although they don't happen often, when they do, you have more money on the table. Plays like stand 16 vs 8, stand 15 vs 9. splitting 99 vs 7, doubling 8 vs 4 and 44 vs 6 (rather than split), then maybe some of the soft doubles like A2 vs 4, A3 vs 4.

If you play all or at least some negative counts you may want to learn some negative indices to ease the pain a bit, like hitting 10 vs 9, A2 vs 5, A4 vs 4 rather than doubling and hitting 33 vs 2 rather than splitiing. If you wong out of most negative counts you dont have to worry about negative indices.

 

[daddybo]

I really don't understand why you wouldn't learn index plays for all hand possibilities at all counts.

 

[kewljason]

I really don't understand why you wouldn't learn index plays for all hand possibilities at all counts.

Some people are only occasional players and don't want to invest that much time and energy, I'm guessing.

 

[daddybo]

Some people are only occasional players and don't want to invest that much time and energy, I'm guessing.

You're probably right. But it's really not that much harder and sometimes there are darn good reasons for playing through negative counts.

 

[Dopple]

I have had pretty good luck with the mildly negative hits like 12 vs 456 or 13 vs 2-6. It is just a little more ammo in your arsenal. Fun to see them work too. If they complain about taking the bust card do it more often so they leave.

 

[kewljason]

I have had pretty good luck with the mildly negative hits like 12 vs 456 or 13 vs 2-6. It is just a little more ammo in your arsenal. Fun to see them work too. If they complain about taking the bust card do it more often so they leave.

Yes, but you don't want to drive them out when the count is negative. You want them there to gobble up the low cards. Drive em out when the count is +5 by splitting 10's, then have all the cards to yourself.

 

[creeping panther]

D-bo

You're probably right. But it's really not that much harder and sometimes there are darn good reasons for playing through negative counts.

You are right. Of course:grin:

I mostly play all except when I am at the same table as you... then I wong out because I know you want all the Neg's to yourself :laugh:

Actually I have not that much fear of the Neg counts since I will use heavy indice play to counteract them, and it is great cover and lessens chances of heat. I think you feel the same.

CP

 

[daddybo]

Yes, but you don't want to drive them out when the count is negative. You want them there to gobble up the low cards. Drive em out when the count is +5 by splitting 10's, then have all the cards to yourself.

Exactly! It never fails to amaze me the reaction to splitting tens.:laugh:

 

[kewljason]

Exactly! It never fails to amaze me the reaction to splitting tens.:laugh:

Splitting ten gets a reaction of course (but who cares), but I'll tell ya the move that gets almost as bad a reaction is doubling A8 vs 5,6, which is so surprising to me cause doubling A8 vs 6 is a basic strat play for the H17 game. But as I said who cares, right. We aren't there to make friends. When the know-it-alls complain to me, I always respond with "I take it you won't be coming to my christmas party?" :laugh:

 

[daddybo]

You are right. Of course:grin:

I mostly play all except when I am at the same table as you... then I wong out because I know you want all the Neg's to yourself :laugh:

Actually I have not that much fear of the Neg counts since I will use heavy indice play to counteract them, and it is great cover and lessens chances of heat. I think you feel the same.

CP

You are correct. But, as you know, I WILL wong as needed. Just not with your finesse! :laugh:

 

[creeping panther]

D-bo

:toast:

You are correct. But, as you know, I WILL wong as needed. Just not with your finesse! :laugh:

You are the Master:toast: of everything BJ, and you Do have a good eye...for...............................

CP

 

[sagefr0g]

You are right. Of course:grin:

I mostly play all except when I am at the same table as you... then I wong out because I know you want all the Neg's to yourself :laugh:
....
CP

yeah i noticed that, when you and Dad left me an Y at the table drowning in baby cards, lmao......... that's ok we was betting with Daddy's chips :eyepatch::whip::joker:
jus kiddin.

 

[daddybo]

yeah i noticed that, when you and Dad left me an Y at the table drowning in baby cards, lmao......... that's ok we was betting with Daddy's chips :eyepatch::whip::joker:
jus kiddin.

Maybe so froggie... But I had my drink!

 

[zengrifter]

I really don't understand why you wouldn't learn index plays for all hand possibilities at all counts.

I say 50#s+ (see ZGI). zg

 

[Thunder]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought under all circumstances you should split 4's vs. 6 even when you're supposed to double an 8 vs 6.

 

[daddybo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought under all circumstances you should split 4's vs. 6 even when you're supposed to double an 8 vs 6.

I usually don't in negative counts.

 

[FLASH1296]

See Theory of Blackjack [6th edition only] for tables giving the actual value of all the indexed plays.

Most have almost no value. The top 20 or so indices embrace around 85% of the total value of all of the gain available to you.

Far and away the single most powerful Index is that of Insurance.

Indexed plays are not nearly as important as accurate bet-sizing in SHOE games.

In "pitch games" however, they are crucial.

 

[Thunder]

I usually don't in negative counts.

Right, but he was referring to positive counts.

 

[kewljason]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought under all circumstances you should split 4's vs. 6 even when you're supposed to double an 8 vs 6.

I have an index tc +8 for doubling 44 vs 6, instead of splitting. Problem is, I have been playing it so long, I no longer remember the source of that info. I want to say Wong, because when I first began playing that was one of the main sources of my info, but again am not sure of my original source. I suppose I should double check some of these against other sources now.