No One Should Have To Pay To Get Full Indices

[DSchles]

I still don't understand how full Hi-Lo indices can't be found anywhere online for free even though it's the most common card counting system. I thought I would've found them somewhere on this forum. I wish people helped each other out more on here. I hope someone who has CVData sees this post and helps.

Every blackjack player on the face of the earth who's worth two cents owns Stanford Wong's Professional Blackjack, which has every Hi-Lo index imaginable in the appendixes. Instead of spending your time and energy bitching and moaning here, why don't you spend a couple of dollars and get one of the most important blackjack books ever written?

Don

 

[BJgenius007]

Every blackjack player on the face of the earth who's worth two cents owns Stanford Wong's Professional Blackjack, which has every Hi-Lo index imaginable in the appendixes. Instead of spending your time and energy bitching and moaning here, why don't you spend a couple of dollars and get one of the most important blackjack books ever written?

Don

I am about to write the same thing. He will also get the full index set for Halves. In case he graduates from Hi-Lo to the more advanced counting system.

 

[Midwest Player]

Every blackjack player on the face of the earth who's worth two cents owns Stanford Wong's Professional Blackjack, which has every Hi-Lo index imaginable in the appendixes. Instead of spending your time and energy bitching and moaning here, why don't you spend a couple of dollars and get one of the most important blackjack books ever written?

Don

And you can buy the kindle version of Professional Blackjack for less than $9 on Amazon which also provides a free app to read it.

 

[DoubleOnHard20]

Every blackjack player on the face of the earth who's worth two cents owns Stanford Wong's Professional Blackjack, which has every Hi-Lo index imaginable in the appendixes. Instead of spending your time and energy bitching and moaning here, why don't you spend a couple of dollars and get one of the most important blackjack books ever written?

Don

If I get the book or if someone else who already has the book shares the indices with me, and I post them all here, is that illegal? I don't see how index numbers are protected under intellectual property rights. They are generated using software that is copyrighted, but the actual numbers themselves aren't.

On this forum, people have already given indices for certain playing deviations using CVData or CVCX. I already linked to the posts earlier. They haven't been removed for "copyright infringement". They aren't breaking intellectual property rights because they purchased the software themselves.

If they decide to use the software to help others for free, they can do that. You could even take screenshots of the software. You can take pictures of anything that you purchase. You just can't pirate the software or steal the coding of it to make your own software. The software is intellectual property. Only the software is copyrighted. All of the indices that the software is capable of generating are not copyrighted. If they were, then it would be illegal for someone to generate the same indices using their own software that the created themselves.

Saying that indices are copyrighted is the same thing as saying that the solutions to math problems are copyrighted. Indices are just solutions to complex math problems for Blackjack.

 

[DoubleOnHard20]

And you can buy the kindle version of Professional Blackjack for less than $9 on Amazon which also provides a free app to read it.

Or you could take a few minutes to share indices so that no one has to purchase something just to get playing deviations, which are not protected as intellectual property.

If I ask someone who has a calculator to find the answer to a complex math problem, and they tell me the answer and how they got it, it isn't copyright infringement. I don't need to own the calculator to be legally allowed to know the answer.
If I ask someone who has CVData to find the index for a specific playing deviation, and they tell me the index and how they got it (remaining cards estimation, flooring/rounding, etc.), it isn't copyright infringement. I don't need to own CVData to be legally allowed to know the index.

Copyright infringement is reproducing the software to others without permission or stealing the coding that went into developing the software.

 

[LV Bear]

Or you could take a few minutes to share indices so that no one has to purchase something just to get playing deviations, which are not protected as intellectual property.

If I ask someone who has a calculator to find the answer to a complex math problem, and they tell me the answer and how they got it, it isn't copyright infringement. I don't need to own the calculator to be legally allowed to know the answer.
If I ask someone who has CVData to find the index for a specific playing deviation, and they tell me the index and how they got it (remaining cards estimation, flooring/rounding, etc.), it isn't copyright infringement. I don't need to own CVData to be legally allowed to know the index.

Copyright infringement is reproducing the software to others without permission or stealing the coding that went into developing the software.

Copyright infringement or otherwise, it is incredibly poor form to ask this. Respectfully, if not spending the few dollars on important blackjack resources is so important, you shouldn't even be thinking about entering a casino.

 

[DSchles]

Or you could take a few minutes to share indices so that no one has to purchase something just to get playing deviations, which are not protected as intellectual property.

If I ask someone who has a calculator to find the answer to a complex math problem, and they tell me the answer and how they got it, it isn't copyright infringement. I don't need to own the calculator to be legally allowed to know the answer.
If I ask someone who has CVData to find the index for a specific playing deviation, and they tell me the index and how they got it (remaining cards estimation, flooring/rounding, etc.), it isn't copyright infringement. I don't need to own CVData to be legally allowed to know the index.

Copyright infringement is reproducing the software to others without permission or stealing the coding that went into developing the software.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong or ill informed. How about trying this on for size, from the front of Profressional Blackjack (and every other book on the face of the earth): "All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher."

Clear enough, or would you like it another language? What's wrong with you?

Don

 

[DoubleOnHard20]

Copyright infringement or otherwise, it is incredibly poor form to ask this. Respectfully, if not spending the few dollars on important blackjack resources is so important, you shouldn't even be thinking about entering a casino.

It's poor form to ask forum members for Hi-Lo indices that are not protected under copyright laws? But telling others to purchase software to get the indices themselves isn't?

Whether it is copyright infringement or not is pretty important. For you to say "or otherwise", like it makes no difference, shows how much you actually care about what intellectual property is and helping other card counters.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong or ill informed. How about trying this on for size, from the front of Profressional Blackjack (and every other book on the face of the earth): "All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher."

Stanford Wong didn't invent Hi-Lo. He still got full Hi-Lo indices. He can't claim the Hi-Lo indices as his intellectual property. Even if he could claim indices as his intellectual property, only Wong Halves indices would be protected under copyright laws, as he invented the system himself.

Indices are answers to blackjack math problems. What do you not understand about this? They cannot be protected under copyright laws, especially Hi-Lo, as it isn't even named after the person who invented it.

 

[DoubleOnHard20]

Clear enough, or would you like it another language? What's wrong with you?

⠐⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠂
⠄⠄⣰⣾⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣆⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠄⡀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠋⣉⣉⣉⡉⠙⠻⣿⣿⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣇⠔⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⢉⣤⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⡀⠹⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⠃⠄⢠⣾⣿⣿⣿⠟⢁⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⢁⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⠋⢠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⡿⠁⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⠄⠄⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⡿⠁⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠄⠄⠄⣠⣄⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠄⠄
⠄⠄⡿⠁⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⢀⡴⠚⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⢠⠄⠄
⠄⠄⠃⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⣿⠴⠋⠄⠄⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⢀⣾⠄⠄
⠄⠄⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠈⠁⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⢀⣾⣿⠄⠄
⠄⠄⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⠄⠄⢶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⢀⣾⣿⣿⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣶⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠋⣠⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⢁⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄
⠄⠄⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⢁⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄
⠄⠄⠈⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⢁⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⠄⠄⣿⣿⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣆⠈⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⣉⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠠⠺⣷⣿⣿⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⣦⣄⣈⣉⣉⣉⣡⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉⠁⣀⣼⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄
⠄⠄⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣾⣿⣿⡿⠟⠄⠄
⠠⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄

 

[DSchles]

It's poor form to ask forum members for Hi-Lo indices that are not protected under copyright laws? But telling others to purchase software to get the indices themselves isn't?

Whether it is copyright infringement or not is pretty important. For you to say "or otherwise", like it makes no difference, shows how much you actually care about what intellectual property is and helping other card counters.

Stanford Wong didn't invent Hi-Lo. He still got full Hi-Lo indices. He can't claim the Hi-Lo indices as his intellectual property. Even if he could claim indices as his intellectual property, only Wong Halves indices would be protected under copyright laws, as he invented the system himself.

Indices are answers to blackjack math problems. What do you not understand about this? They cannot be protected under copyright laws, especially Hi-Lo, as it isn't even named after the person who invented it.

This will be my last response to you, as you are obviously a pig-headed asshole who thinks he knows more than everyone else. I would urge everyone here to ignore you going forward.

The point-count TAGS assigned to the ranks of cards are not copyrightable. They are in the public domain. However, regardless of who created the actual point count, the indices generated by someone for playing deviations are the intellectual property of the person who created them. Back when Wong did his work, it could have taken him weeks, if not months, to generate and develop the indices that he published in his book. If you think you can now come along and disregard the clearcut copyright warning in the front of that book -- and all others, for that matter -- go ahead. If you post the numbers here or anywhere else, without the author's express permission, it will then be up to the him and/or the members of this site to treat you in the manner you deserve. For starters, I imagine that you will be banned from the site. If we're lucky, the author will also sue you.

Don

 

[DoubleOnHard20]

it could have taken him weeks, if not months, to generate and develop the indices that he published in his book.

16 vs 10
7.69% chance of dealer having a blackjack and losing 1 unit

Hitting
8/13 chance of busting if you hit = 61.54% chance of losing 1 unit

7.69% chance of you getting 21
Dealer has a 7/13 chance of having 17-20 = 54.85% of winning immediately when you hit and get 21

If the dealer has a 6 as their hole card, 61.54% chance of them busting
If the dealer has a 5 as their hole card, 53.85% chance of them busting
If the dealer has a 4 as their hole card, 46.15% chance of them busting
If the dealer has a 3 as their hole card, 38.46% chance of them busting
If the dealer has a 2 as their hole card, 30.77% chance of them busting
1/13 chance of the dealer having each of the possibilities above. (1/13)*(61.54%)+(1/13)*(53.85%)+(1/13)*(46.15%)+(1/13)*(38.46%)+(1/13)*(30.77%)= about 17.75% chance of winning because the dealer busted a stiff hand. It's a little more because I didn't do the math for the dealer hitting and getting another stiff hand.

Chance you get 21 when hitting = 7.69% * (54.85 + 17.75) = 5.58% chance of you winning 1 unit by hitting and getting 21

Repeat for you getting 20, 19, 18, and 17 and add up your chances of winning 1 unit. Then subtract the chance of you losing 1 unit by busting at the beginning or the dealer beating you. This is the average amount that you will win/lose for this playing decision in the long run, aka Expected Value.

Do the same thing with a true count of +1 and you would have to adjust the chances of getting a 10 or A. 4 tens and 1 ace means a +1 is on average 0.8 more tens and 0.2 more aces in the deck. 52 cards in a deck means 1/13 chance of getting an ace becomes 4.2/52 and 4/13 chance of getting a ten becomes 16.8/52.

It's just math. It's not that complicated, only time consuming. You can't claim math as intellectual property. I don't understand how you think that indices can be copyrighted.

 

[BJgenius007]

If I get the book or if someone else who already has the book shares the indices with me, and I post them all here, is that illegal? I don't see how index numbers are protected under intellectual property rights. They are generated using software that is copyrighted, but the actual numbers themselves aren't.

Yes, it is illegal.

For the second part, any lawyer will tell you that you are wrong. Are you extremely stubburn or did your mother drop you when you are a baby?

 

[DoubleOnHard20]

Yes, it is illegal.

For the second part, any lawyer will tell you that you are wrong.

Why are these posts still up then?
Doubling down on soft 21: https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/when-to-double-down-on-a-soft-21.55885/#post-496209
Surrendering 88: https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/index-for-8-8-v-9-anyone.15828/
Splitting Pairs (Single Deck): https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/splitting-deviations-for-hi-lo.12542/

Are you extremely stubburn or did your mother drop you when you are a baby?

Some people were dropped on the head as a child. I was thrown at a wall.

 

[jupitor88]

Why are these posts still up then?
Doubling down on soft 21: https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/when-to-double-down-on-a-soft-21.55885/#post-496209
Surrendering 88: https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/index-for-8-8-v-9-anyone.15828/
Splitting Pairs (Single Deck): https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/splitting-deviations-for-hi-lo.12542/

Some people were dropped on the head as a child. I was thrown at a wall.

check and mate Don!
yes why indeed are they still up? because they can't stand to be wrong Double, they have this thing in their brain where they are correct and must be correct almost like a machine/robot i stopped debating with people like that a long time ago its alot easier on my stress factors...

 

[DoubleOnHard20]

check and mate Don!
yes why indeed are they still up? because they can't stand to be wrong Double, they have this thing in their brain where they are correct and must be correct almost like a machine/robot i stopped debating with people like that a long time ago its alot easier on my stress factors...

I'm going to get some popcorn. Don's reaction will be priceless.

 

[DoubleOnHard20]

Yes, it is illegal.

For the second part, any lawyer will tell you that you are wrong. Are you extremely stubburn or did your mother drop you when you are a baby?

But wait, there's more: https://www.blackjackinfo.com/commu...o2-and-i18-and-qfit-data-contradicting.56156/
This user posted AO2 indices from a book and from software to compare them.

This needs an explanation.

 

[BJgenius007]

But wait, there's more: https://www.blackjackinfo.com/commu...o2-and-i18-and-qfit-data-contradicting.56156/
This user posted AO2 indices from a book and from software to compare them.

This needs an explanation.

He was asking a question and only posted a few indexes related to his question, so the author might let it slide. You want to post the complete set of indexes, so it becomes the alternative to the original source. Then the author will get no compensation from his works because the alternative is free. It is a No-No.

For example, you cannot post a complete movie on Youtube. But you can post a five minute segment of the movie on Youtube. The movie studios let it slide because they see the concentration segment is fan made to promote the movie. If others fans like what they saw, they will go to movie theater, buy a DVD or rent a DVD. Either way, the creators got paid. If someone post the complete movie on Youtube, then the movie studio/creator will get nothing. Thus they will ask Youtube to take the illegal uploads off the shelf.

 

[DoubleOnHard20]

He was asking a question and only posted a few indexes related to his question, so the author might let it slide. You want to post the complete set of indexes, so it becomes the alternative to the original source. Then the author will get no compensation from his works because the alternative is free. It is a No-No.

For example, you cannot post a complete movie on Youtube. But you can post a five minute segment of the movie on Youtube. The movie studios let it slide because they see the concentration segment is fan made to promote the movie. If others fans like what they saw, they will go to movie theater, buy a DVD or rent a DVD. Either way, the creators got paid. If someone post the complete movie on Youtube, then the movie studio/creator will get nothing. Thus they will ask Youtube to take the illegal uploads off the shelf.

What about the person who posted 48 single deck splitting deviations for NDAS and 55 single deck splitting deviations for DAS?
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/splitting-deviations-for-hi-lo.12542/

It's been more than 10 years and the post is still available. 103 indices is a lot more than "a few".

 

[BJgenius007]

What about the person who posted 48 single deck splitting deviations for NDAS and 55 single deck splitting deviations for DAS?
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/splitting-deviations-for-hi-lo.12542/

It's been more than 10 years and the post is still available. 103 indices is a lot more than "a few".

Either the creator did not know that. Or he just lets it slide because the posting is not the complete or almost complete set of indexes.

In short, you are advocating to post the complete set of indexes so yours will become the alternative to the original source and yours is free. Free is good for the users but it is illegal to do so. You also said people who bought the book or software did not post the complete set of indexes now they know on Internet because they are selfish. They did not post them because it is illegal.

 

[DoubleOnHard20]

Either the creator did not know that. Or he just lets it slide because the posting is not the complete or almost complete set of indexes.

In short, you are advocating to post the complete set of indexes so yours will become the alternative to the original source and yours is free. Free is good for the users but it is illegal to do so. You also said people who bought the book or software did not post the complete set of indexes now they know on Internet because they are selfish. They did not post them because it is illegal.

You can find basic strategy and Illustrious 18 charts online for free even though they were generated by blackjack software. Why would indices be any different? Indices have always existed for blackjack, they were just not known for a long time. Just because someone created software to generate them, doesn't mean that they own them. Only the software is their intellectual property.

Does the person who made the first basic strategy chart sue people for sharing basic strategy charts? The best playing decisions for each hand possibility have always existed. Discovering them doesn't allow you to claim them as yours.