# Can I Add These 2 Deviations?

#### Raven

##### Well-Known Member
I play with another AP occasionally that uses an A/9 vs 5/6 deviation where he doubles. I use a level 2 R7 true counted with 23 deviations I adapted from K3 (the count I started with). I asked him what is the index to do that and he said "it's 4 and 5 just like splitting 10's" Can I add these to my own deviations blind, since I already have an index for 10/10? When I run it in a sim it pushes my edge up slightly, but I can't find it in Renzey's book anywhere. I'm wondering if he left it out of his count for a reason, as most every other deviation is there. I haven't used it in real play yet because obviously it's a max bet situation and I'm scuuurred.

Last edited:

#### DSchles

##### Well-Known Member
Raven said:
I play with another AP occasionally that uses an A/9 vs 5/6 deviation where he doubles. I use a level 2 R7 true counted with 21 deviations I adapted from K3 (the count I started with). I asked him what is the index to do that and he said "it's 4 and 5 just like splitting 10's" Can I add these to my own deviations blind, since I already have an index for 10/10? When I run it in a sim it pushes my edge up slightly, but I can't find it in Renzey's book anywhere. I'm wondering if he left it out of his count for a reason, as most every other deviation is there. I haven't used it in real play yet because obviously it's a max bet situation and I'm scuuurred.
That are a lot of things wrong with this post, so let's dissect it a bit. First, what in the world is "R7"? That's a new one for me. And K3???? Are you just assuming that people know what these are, when, probably, no one has ever heard of either?

Second, the splitting 10s indices are very valuable (if not advisable), while the A,9 indices are worth virtually nothing because they have one-eighth the frequency of occurrence of the ten-splitting plays.

Next, you add, out of the clear blue: "Can I add these to my own deviations blind, since I already have an index for 10/10?" What does doubling 10 vs. 10 have to do with any of what you discussed? It's a non-sequitur.

Finally, you don't use or not use indices because you're scared! You use them because they will add a meaningful amount to your edge (A,9 vs. 5 and 6 will NOT) or they won't. If you're scared to make any bet, then you're betting too much with respect to your bankroll.

Don

#### xengrifter

##### Banned
Raven said:
Can I add these to my own deviations blind, since I already have an index for 10/10?
Simple answer, yes, I use the same indexes for A9 and XX.

#### Raven

##### Well-Known Member
DSchles said:
That are a lot of things wrong with this post, so let's dissect it a bit. First, what in the world is "R7"? That's a new one for me. And K3???? Are you just assuming that people know what these are, when, probably, no one has ever heard of either?

Second, the splitting 10s indices are very valuable (if not advisable), while the A,9 indices are worth virtually nothing because they have one-eighth the frequency of occurrence of the ten-splitting plays.

Next, you add, out of the clear blue: "Can I add these to my own deviations blind, since I already have an index for 10/10?" What does doubling 10 vs. 10 have to do with any of what you discussed? It's a non-sequitur.

Finally, you don't use or not use indices because you're scared! You use them because they will add a meaningful amount to your edge (A,9 vs. 5 and 6 will NOT) or they won't. If you're scared to make any bet, then you're betting too much with respect to your bankroll.

Don
Am not scurred! Sorry Red7 and Kiss3. Doubling 10 vs 10 wasn't the play I was comparing, it was a 10/10 pair. That's how I write it, I dunno. Nonetheless you answered my question about the A/9 thank you.

#### Raven

##### Well-Known Member
xengrifter said:
Simple answer, yes, I use the same indexes for A9 and XX.
Thank you. I had seen him use it a few times and wondered why I hadn't seen it before this guy.

#### DSchles

##### Well-Known Member
Here's the problem with using an index as high as +5 for any soft double. You get to make the departure once every 39,000 hands, or about once every 390 hours. Do you play that many hours in a year? And, even if you do, if you have just +5 and no higher, the play is marginal in any event.

Bottom line: fuhgeddaboudit!

Don

#### xengrifter

##### Banned
DSchles said:
Here's the problem with using an index as high as +5 for any soft double. You get to make the departure once every 39,000 hands, or about once every 390 hours. Do you play that many hours in a year? And, even if you do, if you have just +5 and no higher, the play is marginal in any event.

On the other hand, even be it infrequent, when the opportunity does present itself, it is a fairly high gain play. So if you can get away with it, when you have the opportunity to do so..
... Just do it!

#### DSchles

##### Well-Known Member
While I don't disagree, sometimes people lose sight of perspective. Yes, if you get to make the play, and the count is truly very high, you might gain as much as an extra 20% by doubling. So maybe you have a \$500 bet out, and you get to make this play once every, say, two years. So, you make an extra \$100 every 730 days by knowing the index. That comes to a whopping 13.7 cents a day! And that's for the black-chip player.

The standard retort is: but what's the harm? Only good can come from knowing the index. And that's correct. My job is to educate players as to just how much "good" really means.

Don

#### LC Larry

##### Well-Known Member
How are you guys making any meaningful money playing such paltry hours a year?

#### DSchles

##### Well-Known Member
LC Larry said:
How are you guys making any meaningful money playing such paltry hours a year?
Who said anything about how many hours anyone actually played? I made a (very reasonable) supposition. You, of course, are entitled to play as many hours as you please. But if you think everyone plays 400+ hours a year, you are sadly mistaken.

Don

#### BoSox

##### Well-Known Member
xengrifter said:
So if you can get away with it, when you have the opportunity to do so..
... Just do it!
What kind of answer is that? Seriously!

#### LC Larry

##### Well-Known Member
DSchles said:
Who said anything about how many hours anyone actually played? I made a (very reasonable) supposition. You, of course, are entitled to play as many hours as you please. But if you think everyone plays 400+ hours a year, you are sadly mistaken.

Don
And if you think the majority of counters are black chippers, right back atcha!

I'd say 99%+ of them at \$10 or less min players.

#### DSchles

##### Well-Known Member
LC Larry said:
And if you think the majority of counters are black chippers, right back atcha!

I'd say 99%+ of them at \$10 or less min players.
You make my point for me. I absolutely DON'T think the majority of players are black chippers. But by using the \$500, I showed how utterly useless knowing the index is. So, for the red chipper, divide by, say, 10, and understand that knowing the index isn't worth two cents a day!

Don

#### xengrifter

##### Banned
On the other hand it is the easiest index to remember, because it is the same as XX.

#### DSchles

##### Well-Known Member
xengrifter said:
On the other hand it is the easiest index to remember, because it is the same as XX.
People misunderstand, as they did for the I18. I never advocated not knowing other indices. I know 150. That isn't the point and never was. The point is, if you're going to learn them, know what they're worth. And unlike splitting tens, which is worth eight times as much, and is valuable to the black chipper, this index simply has no meaningful value.

Don

#### KewlJ

##### Well-Known Member
DSchles said:
People misunderstand, as they did for the I18. I never advocated not knowing other indices. I know 150. That isn't the point and never was. The point is, if you're going to learn them, know what they're worth. And unlike splitting tens, which is worth eight times as much, and is valuable to the black chipper, this index simply has no meaningful value.

Don

Don, did you do a GWAE episode? I seem to remember an interview, spoken not written, because I commented about your New York accent. Anyway, I think that is the interview where you were asked about starting out today and you said something along the lines that you play RPC which you learned xx amount of years ago and you play 150 index plays so you can't or aren't going to unlearn these, BUT if you were starting today, knowing everything you now know, that you would play at level 1 count and the illustrious 18 index plays.

Am I remembering this wrong? Because the way I am remembering it, this seems like advocating for a simpler approach. That is what I took from it.

#### KewlJ

##### Well-Known Member
And now a couple of my own thoughts on things said in this thread.

Number of card counters: I don't track my play by hours, I track by an estimate of rounds played. And I play roughly 80,000 rounds a year. Using the traditional 100 rounds per hours that would be 800 hours, but I don't come close to 100 rounds per hour....not on average. I play short sessions and exit aggressively on negative counts. Even sometimes tracking a second table and jumping immediately to a new game, I probably average 50 rounds an hour when all the moving around and traveling to the next casino is added in. So that would be 1600 hours a year. I wouldn't be surprised if it is even more. Both these numbers 800 and 1600 hours (or even more) are surely greater than most professional players play.

And in all that time, now finishing my 15th year, and 10th in Vegas, I probably see 3-5 card counters a year playing my level (green to mid black), or higher. I see a larger number playing red chip level at some of the lower limit tables that I am forced to play. But reasonable money....not many.

Next: I want to respond to the comment about splitting 10's being "valuable" to the blackchipper. On paper..yes. That includes simulations. It looks like significant value. But one of the most important things....maybe the single most important thing that my experience has taught me, is that most pit people aren't as smart as we think they are. Most are just working folks doing their job and they aren't as knowledgeable about card counters as maybe pit folks once were when they were players or former players themselves. There are really like 3-4 things pit people today are looking for.

1.) of course a spread. But a spread itself doesn't mean much. Many players vary bets. It is the retreating back to the small wager that is the give-away.

2.) A very small number of plays, played differently. 16 vs 10 (which happens to be the most common hand if I am not mistaken), Insuring a blackjack, and splitting 10's. These 3 plays are really the ones that pit people know that card counters play differently at different times. Sharp pit people may look at 12 vs 2 or 3 as well, but it is those initial 3 that signal card counter to most pit people.

You will note that the often talked about splitting 10's is among them. To me, any discussion of their value has to be measured against the big tell that it is. That momentary "value" has to be measured against longevity and the ability of many future hours. When you include that, it becomes not so "valuable".

And by the way, all 3 of these common things that almost all pit people know to look for can be taken care of by playing card counter's basic strategy and not varying how these hands are played.

Last edited:

#### Raven

##### Well-Known Member
xengrifter said:
On the other hand it is the easiest index to remember, because it is the same as XX.
Kinda what I remembered the most about lol

#### Raven

##### Well-Known Member
KewlJ said:
Don, did you do a GWAE episode? I seem to remember an interview, spoken not written, because I commented about your New York accent. Anyway, I think that is the interview where you were asked about starting out today and you said something along the lines that you play RPC which you learned xx amount of years ago and you play 150 index plays so you can't or aren't going to unlearn these, BUT if you were starting today, knowing everything you now know, that you would play at level 1 count and the illustrious 18 index plays.

Am I remembering this wrong? Because the way I am remembering it, this seems like advocating for a simpler approach. That is what I took from it.
I always look forward to your input @KewlJ. This question got me thinking about myself again. Boy am I selfish! I learn as much as I can about Blackjack. Prolly 6 different counts, multiple basic strategies, many deviations, which mostly carry over. Even have a bunch of Excel spreadsheets, and gambling books from decades ago. I guess I am a perpetual learner. Even dream of counting and calling cards face down, usually waking up completely unrested with a headache. Like to have a lot of weapons in my arsenal, but don't think any of it has made me a better or more productive player. Just a more tired one. As 'Brother Daniel' says, "The results are the results. Don't try to steer them." A good example of why I do all of this goes back to the question I asked @DSchles in the other thread about the chapter on backcounting in his book. I pulled those words out of a mental library that night and turned what started as a very losing night completely around. With the paragraphs somehow firmly visualized in my potato brain. Did I do it correctly? Absolutely not which is why I asked him to explain it to me further. Was I close? Yes. I applied it as accurately as I could based on my understanding of what I had read. At a point in the night where I was content knowing the sun is expanding. I am so happy for all of you. It's hard enough to relate what I do to the very curious people in my circle without being looked at sideways, but then to explain why you're losing on top of it... ugghh it's good to be here.

Last edited: