Real Newbie: Question on AOII splittng. Indices are wrong?

[Real Newbie]

The first question may be for other counting systems that are based on true counts too:

1. The indices provided are for all combinations of decks (SD, DD, or multiple decks) because they are based on true counts, ie 1 deck?

2. For DD, S17, DA2, DAS, Basic Strategy calls for no splitting (9,9) against 7 or A, yet table 7.5b indices are 8 against 7 and 9 against A. Are these numbers correct?

3. Also for DD, S17, DA2, DAS, basic strategy for (6,6) against 7 is to split yet table 7.5b says to hit. Why the inconsistency?

Thanks.

[Don Schlesinger]

> 1. The indices provided are for all
> combinations of decks (SD, DD, or multiple
> decks) because they are based on true
> counts, ie 1 deck?

No, I think they are for single-deck. Indices can change as number of decks changes.

> 2. For DD, S17, DA2, DAS, Basic Strategy
> calls for no splitting (9,9) against 7 or A,
> yet table 7.5b indices are 8 against 7 and 9
> against A. Are these numbers correct?

They should be correct for SD, but may be different for DD. You need to generate specific DD indices, which could be slightly different, but shouldn't differ by much.

> 3. Also for DD, S17, DA2, DAS, basic
> strategy for (6,6) against 7 is to split yet
> table 7.5b says to hit. Why the
> inconsistency?

How sure are you that the table is for DAS? Maybe it isn't.

Don

[Real Newbie]

> No, I think they are for single-deck.
> Indices can change as number of decks
> changes.

> They should be correct for SD, but may be
> different for DD. You need to generate
> specific DD indices, which could be slightly
> different, but shouldn't differ by much.

Thanks for the answers, Don. Maybe I should reread the book then spend more time generating DD indices to get ready for an upcoming trip to LV in Mid April. I'm a newbie at all this, and don't quite feel ready for the challenge of real casino play yet. A bit nervous I guess.

> How sure are you that the table is for DAS?
> Maybe it isn't.

In the previous page, Carlson specifically said "Table 7.5b gives the playing indices if doubling down after splits is permitted. This option shifts the balance in favor of splitting in some marginal situations, and it is worth learning if you often play in clubs where doubling on any two cards is allowed."

Don, I so much appreciate your being around and answering questions, unlike other authors. BTW, I also read your book.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Don, I so much appreciate your being around
> and answering questions, unlike other
> authors. BTW, I also read your book.

I have another explanantion of the 6,6 v. 7 probelm. Bryce's indices are supposedly risk-averse, as opposed to ev-maximizing. So, many of the pair-splitting and doubling indices are higher than the traditional ones we're accustomed to seeing. I think that may be the reason why the above index appears too high.

Second explanation: 6,6, v. 7 is a strange index. It has a reverse component to it. The high index may mean split if LOWER than that value, as opposed to higher. It's a weird play.

Don

[Beautiful Brain]

> Thanks for the answers, Don. Maybe I should
> reread the book then spend more time
> generating DD indices to get ready for an
> upcoming trip to LV in Mid April. I'm a
> newbie at all this, and don't quite feel
> ready for the challenge of real casino play
> yet. A bit nervous I guess.

>
If you are having trouble reading BJ For Blood and understanding the charts, you are not ready to play AOII in a casino.

Generating DD indices is a waste of time. Carlson has provided dd indices where he thinks its important, see 7 v. 7 v. 10 for example.

See Blackbelt on how rounded "lite" indices do not even reduce expectation.

Carlson's split and double down indices are conservative (don't increase risk of ruin as he explains) compared to those for similar two level systems - HOII and Zen, but that is not the problem. You are not reading the charts correctly.

As a newbie you should start your casino play with an unbalanced one level system like KO (no true count or ace adjustment). If you insist on two level use Zen. If you memorized the AOII indices you can use them; they are just alittle more conservative than Zen's.

[Jayel]

Real Newbie,
I learned KO, but figured I needed a more "powerful" count so I did my best to learn AOII. It's an extremely difficult count, at least 4 me it was and the few times I did use it in casino play I felt I made too many mistakes & it also gave me about a headache after about 30 mins. of use.

I have temporarily went back to KO 4 right now. I will make another go of AOII in the future, but 4 now I will stick w/ KO. Since you have obviously studied AOII, jumping to a count such as KO will be like a breath of fresh air. If AOII is a 9 on the difficulty scale, KO is a 2.

For most people the added gain they achieve with a count such as AOII is wipped away by all the mistakes they make.

Try KO, I think you will definitely like it's simplicity & if after you KO KO you want to try AOII again go 4 it. But to just start off the bat with a count such as AOII is too difficult, it's like telling someone to jump in the pool and do the breast stroke when they don't even know how to swim. Learn to swim first!
Jayel