Using 6d indices for DD

[bjcount]

Having played only shoe games I've decided to expand my knowledge into DD.

After generating a complete set of indices I went into CVCX and ran a sim to determine both the optimum betting ramp and to get an approximation of the TC frequencies.

After finding most of the TC's fell within the range of +8 to -10, using RPC, I modified the index tables eliminating all the extreme integers outside the range above to the appropriate play, H/S/DD, etc.

For the sake of appeasing my interest, I proceeded to run three sims using these rules:

1.5/2d, S17, DAS, NLS, RSA1, RS4 : $10unit 1-6 spread

I have not been able to figure out yet how to properly set up an ASC to use in CVData so for the results below no ASC was used. (ADDED NOTE: Thanks to Dog Hand-a GC member, I have been given clear instructions in adding ASC for betting purposes which I will have to run at a later date)

The three sims :

1) The newly generated complete set of DD indices, Win rate/hr = $33.53, SCORE=101.05 STD/100=33.35

2) The modified indices (+8 to -10 indices), win rate/hr= $33.18, SCORE=99.28, STD/100=33.30

3) Using the 6d indices for this DD game, win rate/hr=$31.77, SCORE=93.85, Std/100=32.79

So now I look at all the info I have and have a few questions.

1) Is it worth learning an entirely new set of indices knowing that a +1 or -1 integer difference in indices really doesn’t amount to much?

2) My modified set vs the complete set is so close, the modified set with a lower number of indices seems ok. The 6D vs the modified DD produces a 7% lower win rate, but for now I can’t see 100’s of hrs being played at DD because of the lack of DD games in my general playing vicinity. Again I ask is it worth it to learn the DD indices or use my 6d indices and find out which indices are most important in DD and just learn those few new ones?

3) Do I compare the indices between the dd and 6d and the indices that vary greater then +/-1 and adapt those into play?

4) What hand types are most impacted in DD vs shoe games?

5) How much of an improvement would you estimate the ASC adds to the win rate/ score/std deviation?

6) Am I making too much of all this?

Some thoughts from you DD players would be appreciated.

Thanks

BJC


NOTE: The few GC members here will see this posted over there too, just trying to get a wider opinion poll on my questions. Thanks for your understanding.

 

[kewljason]

By my math the winrate using 6d indices vs modified DD is between 4-5% lower not 7%. But no matter, I think it really comes down to will you be playing enough DD to make it worth your while?? You indicated no. But only you can decide if its worth your time and effort.

Personally I play mostly 6 and 8 deck games as well. Of the 1400 hours per year I play, I usually get 40-50 hours of DD play when in vegas. I've never bothered to learn new indices for this small portion of my play. Now if I moved to nevada, as I am considering, I would probably rethink this.

 

[bjcount]

By my math the winrate using 6d indices vs modified DD is between 4-5% lower not 7%. But no matter, I think it really comes down to will you be playing enough DD to make it worth your while?? You indicated no. But only you can decide if its worth your time and effort.

Personally I play mostly 6 and 8 deck games as well. Of the 1400 hours per year I play, I usually get 40-50 hours of DD play when in vegas. I've never bothered to learn new indices for this small portion of my play. Now if I moved to nevada, as I am considering, I would probably rethink this.

Oh yes, your maths correct. I took it from the full indices not the modified. Thanks for the pick up.

BJC

 

[kewljason]

I also wonder how much of that 4-5% difference is solely due to the different insurance index. I'm guessing that if you played the 6 deck indicies but made the correct DD insurance decisions @ +2.4 rather than +3, that gap would narrow quite a bit.

 

[bjcount]

I also wonder how much of that 4-5% difference is solely due to the different insurance index. I'm guessing that if you played the 6 deck indicies but made the correct DD insurance decisions @ +2.4 rather than +3, that gap would narrow quite a bit.

I'll check to see if I can set the insurance for fractional integers, and if so, I'll run a sim to see if there's a difference. So you thinking using the 6d indices with a 2.4 insurance index... hmm shouldnt take too long to check it out.

EDIT:
ok ran the sim, but you can't set it for fractional counts, so I used +2 as the insurance count.
using the 6d indices with +2 for insurance the results were winrate/hr= $31.94, SCORE=94.90, STD/100=32.79
The 0.17 cent increase could be the SE in running a 400 million hand sim, a small improvement nevertheless.

 

[boneuphtoner]

I'm a very passionate amateur player who only gets a few hours of action a year, so take this for what its worth. I've been researching Norm's modernized version of RPC, the excellent FELT count. In his book, Modern Blackjack, he provides S17 and H17 indices for 6 deck and single deck games. That is it. Being lazy and having an aversion to memorizing indices for a game that I would rarely play, I ran a sim using the S17 6 deck indices for EVERYTHING. The sims I ran showed that this strategy bested all of the CVCX sims across the board for all decks/rules combos with the exception of AOII and HI-OPT-II with the Ace sidecount, and Zen with over 100 indices (FELT-Full has less than 50 indices). In comparing single deck performance of the 6 deck indices versus the single deck specific indices, the SD indices were perhaps 15-25 cents better in SCORE across the board...that is it! My take on this is that if you want to eke out every last cent possible, go for it, but otherwise, I doubt you would notice any difference. It certainly wouldn't be worth the trouble for someone like me.

I agree with Norm that this is the easiest of the level II counts because you have so many cancelling pairs.