poboy: hi-lo lite, true edge and TC

[poboy]

Ok, so I figure this question has been asked before (I did a search on here and couldn't find it though), but here it is:

Is the Hi-lo lite (explained in Snyder's Blackbelt in Blackjack) really as effective as he says? It just seems like a waste of time to memorize all those different indices if the couple dozen in his book are as accurate as he says (when a strategy called for +1 or -1 he made the index 0, for instance).

And to add another question - What is the deal with this True Edge idea (as opposed to True Count)? I guess it's the count per half-deck instead of count per deck but is it as effective? Arnold Snyder obviously knows what he's talking about but I haven't heard anyone else talk about this and was wondering what everybody thinks.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Is the Hi-lo lite (explained in Snyder's
> Blackbelt in Blackjack) really as effective
> as he says?
> And to add another question - What is the
> deal with this True Edge idea (as opposed to
> True Count)?

Compromise indexes certainly have some cost. Less cost in six decks than in SD and less than thought decades ago. It depends on the compromise between effort and accuracy that you wish to make. Risk averse compromise indexes can be created that are very good. But it does require a fair amount of work. True Edge I didn't like when it came out. It causes a compression in the range of true counts reducing betting accuracy. It has been completely obsoleted by the advent of optimal betting.

For a comparison of HiLo Lite, HiLo with Ill18 and HiLo with full indexes, see the CVCX chart below. This provides SCORE for all penetrations between 26 and 132 cards. You could do even better with risk-averse index numbers. Sorry, I don't have a sim for that handy.

Blackjack Scams

[poboy]

[Parker]

The chart rather dramatically illustrates a couple of things in addition to it's intended purpose of comparing the systems. To wit:

- The importance of penetration can be clearly seen. Note also that this is not linear; the increase in SCORE from 2.5 decks (128 cards) to 2.0 decks (104 cards) is negligible, but SCORE nearly doubles when we go from 1.0 decks (52 cards) to .5 decks (26 cards).

- Conversely, if we are playing a poorly penetrated game, it really doesn't make much difference what system we use.

[stainless steel rat]

> The chart rather dramatically illustrates a
> couple of things in addition to it's
> intended purpose of comparing the systems.
> To wit:

> - The importance of penetration can be
> clearly seen. Note also that this is not
> linear; the increase in SCORE from 2.5 decks
> (128 cards) to 2.0 decks (104 cards) is
> negligible, but SCORE nearly doubles when we
> go from 1.0 decks (52 cards) to .5 decks (26
> cards).

> - Conversely, if we are playing a poorly
> penetrated game, it really doesn't make much
> difference what system we use.

When I first got CVCX and started playing with it, that became the most noticable piece of information I learned, and learned quickly. Penetration can offset lots of bad rules that I had tried to avoid in the past (IE H17 with good pen vs S17 with bad pen, I would mistakenly take the S17 (better rule, worse pen, much worse SCORE).

I've said this _many_ times. I have learned more about the game post CVCX than pre CVCX, it is eye opening...

[Brick]

Thanks for sharing your chart and info. How many index numbers does Full Indexes use?

> Compromise indexes certainly have some cost.
> Less cost in six decks than in SD and less
> than thought decades ago. It depends on the
> compromise between effort and accuracy that
> you wish to make. Risk averse compromise
> indexes can be created that are very good.
> But it does require a fair amount of work.
> True Edge I didn't like when it came out. It
> causes a compression in the range of true
> counts reducing betting accuracy. It has
> been completely obsoleted by the advent of
> optimal betting.

> For a comparison of HiLo Lite, HiLo with
> Ill18 and HiLo with full indexes, see the
> CVCX chart below. This provides SCORE for
> all penetrations between 26 and 132 cards.
> You could do even better with risk-averse
> index numbers. Sorry, I don't have a sim for
> that handy.

>

[Brick]

The chart also seems to suggest using more index numbers as pen increases does have value. How many Index #'s do you use?

> The chart rather dramatically illustrates a
> couple of things in addition to it's
> intended purpose of comparing the systems.
> To wit:

> - The importance of penetration can be
> clearly seen. Note also that this is not
> linear; the increase in SCORE from 2.5 decks
> (128 cards) to 2.0 decks (104 cards) is
> negligible, but SCORE nearly doubles when we
> go from 1.0 decks (52 cards) to .5 decks (26
> cards).

> - Conversely, if we are playing a poorly
> penetrated game, it really doesn't make much
> difference what system we use.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Thanks for sharing your chart and info. How
> many index numbers does Full Indexes use?

143 indexes were used. But, they aren't the best that could be generated. Somewhat better performance could be obtained with a modern set.

[Brick]

out of 143?

thanks.

[Norm Wattenberger]

Look at the book. I don't agree with the index numbers in the book. I put them in the sims because most people use them. People that use their own indexes can run their own sims.