The value of various indices

[neversplit5s]

A few weeks ago someone posted about indices for splitting non-ten pairs, and it was brought up that one reason they're not widely used is the low frequency of the hands. After thinking some more on the issue, I see three factors in determining how valuable a particular index is:

1. The TC that it is applied at: High-magnitude counts are rare, and at even moderate negative counts you've either left or are betting the minimum; this gives more weight to indices at neutral-to-moderate-positive TCs, since the TC values are either commonly encountered or you've got a large bet out.

2. Like I've said before, the frequency of the hand: Stiff hands and hard double down hands are quite common, with soft hands being less common, and (non-ten) pairs even less so.

3. This one is a little more abstract, but the difference in value between the two plays in question: If on an index graph you see the two lines running at a steep angle to each other, that means that making the wrong play is more costly than when the two lines run near-parallel.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[stopgambling]

how much +ev for the more common plays

Would like to know 10 vs ace ,at tc 4? in double deck ,what is the difference in ev between doubling and hitting .are there any other that will come up thats pretty common?? anything under +10 tc??I would be of great help ,thanks a lot guys????

 

[stopgambling]

Actually i read in b.j.a. it was tc 2 for 10 vs ace.Should i not do that for camo?

 

[tthree]

I memorize all the positive indices. I especially want perfect play with my max bet out. The swings on those bets often make or break a session. The factors I think are important for deciding what indices to memorize:

1) Hand frequency. The more frequent you get the hand the more important the match up.
2) Frequency the index is used (TC frequency). The higher the magnitude the less often you use it.
3) Bet size at the index. The higher the bet you have out the more important perfect play is for that hand and to that session.

Memorizing indices is easy. I memorize over 100. My win rate reflects it. I make damn sure I have all the positive indices down cold and try to know all the others. I had a dealer that made me want to play her entire shift. The count was not cooperating but knowing all those negative indices made it quite profitable for the rare good opportunities. I had another situation where the TC got over 30 for a big chunk of the end of a shoe. It was great, no math required as all indices were exceeded. All I got were splits, doubles and blackjacks. I won 120 units on 6 rounds. If I didn't know all the indices I might not have known they existed to use them.

 

[kewljason]

I memorize all the positive indices. I especially want perfect play with my max bet out. The swings on those bets often make or break a session. The factors I think are important for deciding what indices to memorize:

1) Hand frequency. The more frequent you get the hand the more important the match up.
2) Frequency the index is used (TC frequency). The higher the magnitude the less often you use it.
3) Bet size at the index. The higher the bet you have out the more important perfect play is for that hand and to that session.

Memorizing indices is easy. I memorize over 100. My win rate reflects it. I make damn sure I have all the positive indices down cold and try to know all the others. I had a dealer that made me want to play her entire shift. The count was not cooperating but knowing all those negative indices made it quite profitable for the rare good opportunities. I had another situation where the TC got over 30 for a big chunk of the end of a shoe. It was great, no math required as all indices were exceeded. All I got were splits, doubles and blackjacks. I won 120 units on 6 rounds. If I didn't know all the indices I might not have known they existed to use them.

Boy, you really like to go after every last cent, tthree. :laugh: And that's ok, it your prerogative. But the fact is after a few dozen indices, they add very little. I play 30-36 depending on game and that's probably too many. But knock yourself out. Go after those last few cents.

What I do find strange is you often like to cite an example where what you are saying worked out well, which I guess is better than giving an example where your advice failed. :laugh:

Your example and last line of your statement makes it seem like you are crediting winning 120 units to the fact that you play 100+ indices, when in fact, regardless of what happened in that particular session, the value of all those extra indices where only a few cents. So when you say "my win rate reflects it", it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Your win rate reflects those few extra cents? :laugh:

 

[tthree]

Boy, you really like to go after every last cent, tthree. :laugh: And that's ok, it your prerogative. But the fact is after a few dozen indices, they add very little. I play 30-36 depending on game and that's probably too many. But knock yourself out. Go after those last few cents.

What I do find strange is you often like to cite an example where what you are saying worked out well, which I guess is better than giving an example where your advice failed. :laugh:

Your example and last line of your statement makes it seem like you are crediting winning 120 units to the fact that you play 100+ indices, when in fact, regardless of what happened in that particular session, the value of all those extra indices where only a few cents. So when you say "my win rate reflects it", it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Your win rate reflects those few extra cents? :laugh:

The last part of my post is trying to show that just knowing the existence of the indices many don't worry about was worth it on this count. If all you did was go I need these 18 or 22 indices and I would be fine and didn't even pay attention to what other indices existed you would have missed many of the doubles and splits. The dealer got a stiff card almost every hand so there were a lot of long shot to ever happen doubles and splits that were very strong plays at that count. I had some that I knew existed but never bothered with since they were indices in the low 20s. Since I knew the index existed and was exceeded I could make the plays.

My being about 4 times over EV is more about intangibles to counting. Mostly game selection and spotting opportunities worth a marathon session and conditions not worth hanging around for. I was playing and they brought in a dealer who usually deals baccarat. He cut well less than a deck off the shoe and dealt a round after the cut card. There were usually about 20 cards left at the shuffle. I played his whole shift and used all those negative indices to keep my spots. I used as many bathroom, beverage and phone call breaks as I could get away with. The count didn't allow the usual opportunities but I still made a killing. Almost every shoe gave me a round or 2 near the end with a big edge. Mostly I think it is luck to some degree, but if you are observant and selective you make your own luck to some degree. I read many posts from people that are playing conditions I wouldn't even consider playing and for long sessions and wondering why the have such long and bad bouts with variance.

 

[AussiePlayer]

I was playing and they brought in a dealer who usually deals baccarat. He cut well less than a deck off the shoe and dealt a round after the cut card. There were usually about 20 cards left at the shuffle.

Time to dust of the floating advantage!!!

 

[blackjack avenger]

very good

Time to dust of the floating advantage!!!

:laugh: